CAR_Public/061027.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 214

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Rehire Policy Discriminatory, Court Rules
AURELIAN RESOURCES: Faces Claims Over 2003 Private Placement
BALLARD'S FARM: Recalls Egg Salad Over Listeria Contamination
BELO CORP: Fired Workers File Suit Over ERISA Violations in Tex.
BETESH GROUP: Recalls Cookie Monster Toys For Choking Hazard

BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court's Order
CALIFORNIA: Suit Over NCAA Cap on GIA Gets Class Certification
CANADA: Quebec Appeals Court Bans "Multiple-Defendant" Practice
CENTENE CORP: Parties Seek Consolidation of Mo. Securities Suits
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Former Wis. Chrysler Worker Takes Case Online

EQ INDUSTRIAL: Judge Protects N.C. Plant Explosion Evidence
ENRON CORP: Former Chief Gets 24 Years in Jail for Stock Fraud
EXELON CORP: Faces Race Discrimination Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wary of Drug Prices Revamp, First DataBank Deal
UNITED STATES: Judge Halts MNG Reimbursement Suit Pending Talks

NASUTRA LLC: Recalls Dietary Supplement Over Undeclared Content
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.
OWENS CORNING: Tex. Couple Files Suit in Ohio v. 401(k) Overseer
REX ENERGY: Bridgeport Families File Air Pollution Suit in Ill.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: CFO Says "Lights" Case Could Cost Firm $125M

STARBUCKS CORP: Recalls 8-Cup Coffee Brewers Due to Fire Hazard
SONY ENERGY: Recalls Laptop Computer Batteries For Fire Hazard
TRAVEL COS: Nassau County Tax Remits Suit Names 17 Defendants
UNITED STATES: Groups Ask Judge to Release Immigrants in Calif.
VIRGINIA: Confident in Settling Mental Patients' Voting Lawsuit

VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Consolidated Stock Complaint Due Nov. 30
WAITING ANGELS: Faces RICO Violations Lawsuit in W.D. Michigan
XCELERA.COM INC: Discovery Continues in Mass. Securities Lawsuit
XETHANOL CORP: Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. Without Merit
XM SATELLITE: Consolidated Complaint in D.C. Stock Suit Filed

YUKOS OIL: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Philips Increases Accrual to EUR398M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Webers in Suit v. John Crane
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Men Sue 129 Defendants in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Records $2.2M Charge for Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Sues Honeywell Over NARCO Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.469B Liabilities at 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $33M Charge for Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.94B for 3Q Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Estimates $1.6B for NARCO Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Notes 60,253 Bendix Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's Claims Settlement Reaches $561M in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Has $90M Net Income in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Revised UK Rules to be Enforced on Nov. 13
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Okla. Man Sues 30 Defendants in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Bay Authority to Pay $230T for Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BNSF Railway Claims Decrease to 2,138 in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Liability Remains at $1.7B in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $9.5M Assets, Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has 111,014 Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery on ASD Suit Extended to Sept. '07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cites $387.8M Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Ordered to Pay $2.15M in Norris Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow to Claim GBP150T in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Saint-Gobain Reports 2T New Claims in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Takes on Equitas Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lehmann Kin Wins Compensation Suit v. ACC


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

XETHANOL CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing


                            *********

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Rehire Policy Discriminatory, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court ruled in a nationwide lawsuit that Allstate
Insurance Co.'s one-year moratorium on rehiring its former sales
agents had an adverse impact on older agents, according to the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Judge E. Richard Webber, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri in St. Louis, granted the EEOC's
motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Allstate's
rehire policy affected workers 40 years of age or older
disproportionately.

Filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
which prohibits discrimination against persons over 40 years of
age, the case will now be heard by a jury to decide whether the
rehire policy falls under an exception to the ADEA.  According
to that exception, any action based on a "reasonable factor
other than age" is not unlawful.

The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that in 2000 Allstate terminated
its sales agents, offered to make them independent contractors,
and refused to rehire them in other positions as employees for
one year.  Because more than 90% of the agents were 40 years of
age or older, the EEOC said that the rehire policy violated the
ADEA.

Judge Webber decided that the EEOC, "has provided sufficient
evidence to show a disparate impact on the protected group" of
agents 40 years of age or older.

Allstate argued that the court should dismiss the case without a
trial because its rehire policy had no disparate impact and was
based on a reasonable factor other than age.  Judge Webber
denied the company's motion and ordered that a jury would decide
the reasonableness issue.

"This decision is an important landmark in the further
development of age discrimination law," said Robert Johnson, the
EEOC regional attorney for the St. Louis District.  "Since the
Supreme Court ruled last year that the ADEA does extend to
disparate impact cases, this is one of the first court decisions
applying that ruling to a new case."

Felix Miller, senior trial attorney for the EEOC, said, "Even
when there is no intentional age discrimination, an employer
violates the ADEA if its policy has an adverse impact on older
workers and the policy was not based on a reasonable factor
other than age.  We fully expect to be able to prove to a jury
that Allstate's policy was unreasonable."

This lawsuit is the second national lawsuit filed by the EEOC
concerning Allstate's 2000 reorganization from employee agents
to what the company considered independent contractors.  In
2001, the EEOC filed suit claiming that Allstate unlawfully
required its agents to release any employment discrimination
claims if they wished to continue working as agents after the
reorganization.  In that first lawsuit, brought in U.S. District
Court in Philadelphia, the court held that the release
requirement was unlawful retaliation, but the case awaits
further rulings before final resolution.

The second lawsuit is a purported class action filed in August
2001 was filed by several former employee agents alleging
retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act, breach of contract and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act violations (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5,
2005).

The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allstate
Insurance Co., Case No. 4:04-cv-01359-ERW," filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge
E. Richard Webber.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Khara A. Coleman at Kirkland and Ellis, 200 E. Randolph
         Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, Fax:
         312-861-2200, E-mail: kcoleman@kirkland.com; and

     (2) Donald R. Livingston at Akin and Gump, 1333 New
         Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, DC
         20036, Phone: 202-887-4242, Fax: 202-887-4288, E-mail:
         dlivingston@akingump.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robert G. Johnson and C. Felix
Miller, Jr., EEOC, 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO
63103, Phone: 314-539-7910, Fax: 314-539-7895, E-mail:
robert.johnson@eeoc.gov or felix.miller@eeoc.gov.


AURELIAN RESOURCES: Faces Claims Over 2003 Private Placement
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Yee, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons
residing in Alberta, Canada who purchased warrants in Aurelian
Resources Inc. in 2003, (Yee Class), have filed a Statement of
Claim in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, on August 25,
naming Aurelian as defendant.  Aurelian received the claim on
Oct. 17, 2006.

Also, Timothy Gallagher, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
persons residing in Ontario who purchased warrants in Aurelian
in 2003, (Gallagher Class), have filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on October 16, naming
Aurelian as defendant.

The Claims surround certain common share purchase warrants
issued by Aurelian on June 6, 2003 as part of a private
placement of 6,000,000 units at $0.50 per unit for gross
proceeds of $3,000,000.  Each unit was comprised of one common
share and one Warrant.  Each Warrant entitled the holder to
purchase one common share at $0.60 per share during the first
year from the date of issuance and $0.75 per share during the
second year.

The terms of the Warrants provided that they would expire in
June 2005 unless, prior to that time, Aurelian became listed on
Tier 1 of the TSXV or on the TSX in which case Aurelian would
petition the applicable exchange for an additional two-year
extension to the Warrants.

The Classes allege that Aurelian did not use "best efforts" to
obtain the necessary approvals to extend the term of the
Warrants to June 6, 2007.

Accordingly, the Yee Class is claiming that they are entitled to
be issued the 400,000 common shares that would have been issued
to the Yee Class on the exercise of their Warrants had the term
been extended to June 6, 2007 upon the payment to Aurelian of
$400,000 or in the alternative, $12 million plus costs and
interest.

The Gallagher Class is claiming that they are entitled to be
issued the estimated 1,660,000 common shares that would have
been issued to the Gallagher Class on the exercise of their
Warrants had the term been extended to June 6, 2007 upon the
payment to Aurelian of $1,660,000 or in the alternative, $40
million plus costs and interest.

Aurelian Resources Inc. -- http://www.aurelian.ca-- is a
publicly-listed junior resource company engaged in the business
of exploring, discovering and developing mineral wealth in
Ecuador.  The Condor Project properties are located in
southeastern Ecuador and consist of 38 mining concessions
totaling approximately 95,000 hectares.


BALLARD'S FARM: Recalls Egg Salad Over Listeria Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ballard's Farm Sausage, Inc. of Wayne, West Virginia, is
recalling its Ballard's 12 oz. egg salad, Food City 12 oz. egg
salad and Valu Time 11 oz. egg salad -- because of contamination
with Listeria monocytogenes.

This organism can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people and others with
weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled egg salads were distributed in West Virginia, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana,
Alabama, Delaware, Illinois and Florida.

The recalled products are sold in a clear plastic cup with the
description cleared displayed on the side of the cup.  All of
the egg salad items being recalled, the Ballard's 12 oz. egg
salad, Food City 12 oz. egg salad and the Valu Time 11 oz. egg
salad, will have on the side of the cup a "Best if used by
11/7/06" description.

At this time no illnesses have been reported in connection with
this contamination.

The contamination was noted after routine testing by the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture.  This test revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in egg product.

The production of the product has been temporarily suspended
while the company continues to investigate the source of the
problem.

Consumers are urged to return the egg salad items with the
identification of "Best if used by 11/7/06" to their location of
purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with any questions may contact the company at 800-346-
7675.


BELO CORP: Fired Workers File Suit Over ERISA Violations in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas Morning News and Belo Corp. are facing a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), The Fort Worth Star Telegram reports.

The suit, filed by 18 of 65 editorial employees terminated by
The Dallas Morning News in a 2004 cost-savings move, alleges
targeting workers older than 40 in the 250 layoffs that came
after Belo's circulation fraud was revealed and it had to refund
$23 million to advertisers.

Plaintiffs claim that the Belo Corp. flagship paper announced
their posts were being dropped only to fill them later with
younger journalists.

The terminated workers are seeking back and future wages and
benefits, as well as civil penalties for ERISA violation.  One
plaintiff is also seeking $9,200 that the suit claims he was
entitled to under the paper's severance plan.

Making the discrimination lawsuit somewhat unusual is its
allegation that the newspaper, Belo Chief Executive Robert
Decherd and News Publisher James Moroney, III, conspired to
commit fraud by withholding information about inflated
circulation figures long before publicly acknowledging the
problem in August 2004, the report said.

The circulation scandal hurt Belo stock and, in turn, the value
of employee benefit plans, which are subject to federal pension
law, it claimed. The paper spent $23 million repairing damaged
relations with advertisers.

Belo hired a law firm to mount an internal investigation, which
found no wrongdoing by top management.

In 2005, angry shareholders against Belo filed a class action,
and in April of that year, the Dallas County district attorney
subpoenaed documents linked to the circulation scandal, but no
criminal charges have been filed.

Belo spokesman Carey Hendrickson said the complaint is without
merit and that the company intends to defend against it
vigorously.

The suit is "Powell et al v. The Dallas Morning News, L.P. et
al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01960," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Jane J Boyle.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Howard C. Rubin and Lisa Catherine Tulk both of Kessler
         & Collins, 2100 Ross Ave., Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75201,
         Phone: 214-379-0722, Fax: 214-373-4714, E-mail:
         hrubin@kesslercollins.com or ltulk@kesslercollins.com;
         and

     (2) Karen Shropshire of Law Office of Karen G Shropshire,
         8117 Preston Rd., Suite 300, Dallas, TX 75225, Phone:
         214-706-9250, Fax: 214-706-9251, E-mail:
         kshropshire@abttx.com.


BETESH GROUP: Recalls Cookie Monster Toys For Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The Betesh Group of New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 31,000
units of Baby Cookie Monster plush toys with DVD.

The company said the small felt fabric cookie attached to the
plush toy's hand can be removed easily and ingested by young
children, posing a choking hazard.  No injuries or incidents
have been reported.

This recall involves the Baby Cookie Monster plush toy packaged
with certain Sesame Beginnings Make Music Together DVDs.  The
blue plush toy has a small, felt fabric cookie attached to its
hand.  The plush toy and DVD are packaged in a yellow and green
box with the words "Sesame Beginnings" and "Make Music Together"
printed on the front.  The product is labeled for children ages
6 months and up.

These Baby Cookie Monster plush toys with DVD were manufactured
in China and are being sold exclusively at Wal-Mart stores
nationwide from March 2006 to July 2006 for about $15.

Pictures of the recalled Baby Cookie Monster plush toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07009a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07009b.jpg

Using scissors, consumers are advised to immediately remove the
felt cookie and its connecting thread from the plush toy.  Once
detached, the felt cookie and thread should be disposed of
immediately.

For additional information, contact Sesame Workshop at (800)
986-1619 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit Sesame Workshop's Web site:
http://www.sesameworkshop.org/recall.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court's Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying class
certification for the lawsuit, "Ray Ridgeway, et al. v.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, No. 48-185170-00," which
was originally filed in the District Court of Tarrant County,
Texas, 48th Judicial District.

The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. (BNSF) predecessor, Santa Fe
Southern Pacific Corp. (SFSP).

The complaint alleges that SFSP erroneously informed
shareholders as to the tax treatment of the dividend
"specifically, the apportionment of the dividend as either a
distribution of earnings and profits or a return of capital,"
which allegedly caused some shareholders to overpay their income
taxes.

The plaintiffs assert, through their expert's report, that SFSP
had essentially no accumulated earnings and profits and that the
entire dividend distribution should have been treated as a
return of capital, rather than the approximately 34 percent that
SFSP determined was a return of capital.

On July 8, 2005, the court entered a final order denying the
plaintiffs' requests to certify a class action.  On Aug. 24,
2006, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying
certification.

Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing of the order of the Texas Court
of appeals was denied, and plaintiffs are expected to seek
review by the Supreme Court of Texas, according to the company's
Oct. 24, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.

Fort Worth, Texas-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.
(NYSE: BNI) -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- through its subsidiaries
is engaged primarily in the rail transportation business.  The
rail operations of BNSF Railway, BNSF's principal operating
subsidiary, comprise the railroad systems in North America.
BNSF Railway operates over a railroad system consisting of
approximately 32,000 route miles of track (excluding second,
third and fourth main tracks, yard tracks, and sidings),
approximately 24,000 miles of which are owned route miles,
including easements in 28 states and two Canadian provinces as
of Dec. 31, 2005.

CALIFORNIA: Suit Over NCAA Cap on GIA Gets Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a lawsuit
against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

The suit alleges that the NCAAA violated the federal antitrust
laws through an unlawful agreement with its member schools to
restrict the amount of athletic financial aid or "grant-in-aid"
(GIA) student-athletes can receive.

In February, three former college athletes filed an antitrust
suit in the federal district court in Los Angeles against the
NCAA (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).

The lawsuit challenges an agreement under which the NCAA and its
member schools have imposed a maximum cap on the amount of
athletics-based financial aid, support available to student
athletes competing in major college sports.

Under this agreement, the amount of the GIA is artificially
fixed at an amount that falls far short of the full "cost of
attendance" (COA) at NCAA member institutions.

The lawsuit alleges that this agreement is an unlawful restraint
of trade in violation of the federal antitrust laws.

Athletic scholarships, known as "grants-in-aid" or "GIAs," are
currently subject to an NCAA bylaw, which caps scholarships at
an amount below the student-athletes' full cost of attendance at
their schools.

Plaintiffs allege that this bylaw prevents member schools from
providing student athletes with athletic-based financial aid
sufficient to cover the costs of attending school, such as
travel expenses, clothing, health insurance, and school
supplies.

The class includes all current and former NCAA Division IA
football players and men's Division I basketball players (in the
major and "Mid-Major" conferences) who received GIAs at any time
between February 2002 and the present.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and an order from the Court
"restraining the NCAA from enforcing its unlawful and
anticompetitive agreement."

In September, the court denied the NCAA's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint.  In that ruling, the court noted that the
Plaintiffs had adequately alleged that: "the GIA cap ... forces
student-athletes to bear a greater portion of the cost of
attendance than they would have borne if the GIA cap had not
been in place."

The named plaintiffs and class representatives are:

      -- Jason White, who played football at Stanford;

      -- Brian Polak, who played football at UCLA; and

      -- Jovan Harris, who played basketball at the University
         of San Francisco.

The suit is "Jason White et al v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 2:06-cv-00999-RGK-MAN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge R. Gary Klausner, with referral to Judge Margaret A.
Nagle.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) David M. Balabanian, Nora C. Cregan, Farschad Farzan,
         Christina Marie Wheeler and Frank M. Hinman all of
         Bingham McCutchen, 3 Embarcadero Ctr, Ste 1800, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-4067, Phone: 415-393-2000, E-mail:
         david.balabanian@bingham.com or
         frank.hinman@bingham.com;

     (2) Gregory L. Curtner, Atleen Kaur, Kimberly K. Kefalas
         and Robert J Wierenga all of Miller Canfield Paddock &
         Stone, 101 N Main St., 7th Fl., Ann Arbor, MI 48104,
         Phone: 734-668-7697 or 734-668-7663 or 734-668-7629 or
         734-663-2445, E-mail: curtner@millercanfield.com or
         kaur@millercanfield.com or kefalas@millercanfield.com
         or wierenga@millercanfield.com.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (i) Maxwell M. Blecher of Blecher & Collins, 515 South
         Figueroa St, 17th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone:
         213-622-4222, E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com; and
         Courtney A. Palko of Blecher and Collins, 611 West
         Sixth Street, 20th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-622-4222, E-mail: cpalko@blechercollins.com;

    (ii) Stephen E. Morrissey, Marc M. Seltzer and Steven G.
         Sklaver all of Susman Godfrey, 1901 Avenue of the
         Stars, Suite 950, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-
         789-3103 or 310-789-3100, E-mail:
         smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com or
         mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com; and Tibor Nagy of Susman
         Godrey, 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100, Houston, TX
         77002-5096, Phone: 713-651-9366, E-mail:
         tnagy@susmangodfrey.com.


CANADA: Quebec Appeals Court Bans "Multiple-Defendant" Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec's Court of Appeal banned the controversial practice of
"multiple-defendant" class actions, in which plaintiffs seek
damages from entire industry sectors, not just the companies
with which they have done business, according to Beppi Crosariol
of The Globe and Mail Update.

Hailed by corporate defense attorneys, the decision severely
curtails the powers of injured parties to launch lawsuits
against businesses.

The decision is seen as a boon, especially to companies that
deal in major consumer products such as automobiles.  It will
also help the insurance, securities and pharmaceuticals sectors,
which have borne the brunt of such lawsuits.

It also reverses what many defense attorneys regarded as a
perverse development over the past five years, which has helped
earn Quebec the dubious distinction as the most plaintiff-
friendly jurisdiction for class action in North America.

Marie Audren, regional leader of the Montreal class actions
group at national law firm Borden Ladner Gervais, LLP, commented
that with the decision Quebec might lose its reputation as "the
class-action paradise."

Ms. Audren who recently published a study on industry-wide
lawsuits with colleague Emmanuelle Rolland also adds, "It is a
big, big turning point."

The landmark decision came in a case that involved allegations
of unjust enrichment by dairies for allegedly short-changing
consumers on the fat content of their milk.

Andr, Bouchard, the plaintiff in the case, had sought $89
million in damages against Agropur Cooperative and 11 other
dairies, even though he had purchased milk from only one of the
dairies.

Mr. Bouchard claims that about half the milk sold as either 1
per cent, 2 per cent or whole milk (which carries a 3.25-per-
cent fat content) fell slightly short of the mark on fat
content, sometimes by as much as 0.03 per cent.  According to
attorneys, the implication was that the dairies had been
skimming the fat for use in cheese production.

However, Mr. Bouchard's allegations were said to be unfounded
and thus in a 2004 judgment, Quebec's Superior Court sided with
the dairies, on the grounds that the shortfalls were within the
calibration limits of their measuring equipment.  In fact, the
court noted that much of the milk exceeded the advertised levels
by a similar margin of error.

The recent appeals court ruling not only upheld the trial
court's key findings, but also took the unusual step of weighing
in on the much-debated multiple-defendant issue.

The appeals court declared that Mr. Bouchard's case could not
have been certified as a class action against the dairies he did
not buy milk from in any event, since he did not have a cause of
action against them.

That cause-of-action principle is considered sacrosanct in most
other jurisdictions in North America and has been upheld in
several landmark cases, both in the U.S. and in other provinces.
A 1967 U.S. district court decision and a 2000 Ontario decision
involving the tobacco industry and a fire ignited by a cigarette
are such examples.

However, attorneys say that in the legal solitude of Quebec, an
anomalous trend began in 2001.  In that year the province's
Superior Court surprisingly granted class action status to a
claim launched by a consumer, alleging that three auto insurers
had been repairing damaged vehicles with generic instead to
original-equipment parts.  That consumer had only done business
with one of the insurers.

That claim, eventually settled out of court in 2005, was
ultimately signed by 77 insurers and opened the floodgates,
according to attorneys.

Although the province doesn't break down statistics on multiple-
defendant cases, dozens of similar class actions were
subsequently launched, many of which are still pending before
the courts.

They include a suit against property insurers stemming from
Quebec's devastating ice storm of 1998.  Another one involves 19
mutual fund companies that were alleged to have taken part in a
market-timing scandal that benefited some investors over others.

"Our firm alone is involved in a dozen cases in which this
decision will have a huge impact," says Yves Martineau of
Stikeman Elliott LLP in Montreal, who represented one of the
dairies in the milk case.

Mr. Martineau and others say the pace of multiple-defendant
suits accelerated after 2003, when Quebec passed controversial
class-action amendments that generally lowered the bar for
plaintiffs.

Among those changes, which were aimed at improving access to
justice, was the removal of the right of defendants to cross-
examine plaintiffs on the veracity of their allegations prior to
class-action certification.

David Stolow, a litigator with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg
LLP in Montreal, says, "Our rules are the most plaintiff-
friendly in Canada, if not North America."

The decision is expected to send defense attorneys scurrying to
demand courts dismiss actions against their clients.  Among the
first in line will be Guy Lemay, a partner at Lavery de Billy
SENCRL on Montreal.

Mr. Lemay is representing Toyota in a class action certified
last year against 19 carmakers for allegedly failing to fully
disclose a $46 registration fee on the price of each vehicle.

Mr. Lemay says multiple-defendant suits explode the cost of
lawsuits, since defendants will usually choose to hire separate
counsel, in part to safeguard potential trade secrets.

Not all attorneys though agree with the ruling.  Some firms that
specialized in plaintiff work are even saying that the move will
force injured parties to launch actions against each firm
accused of wrongdoing.  Essentially, the ruling, these attorneys
argue, will place a financial hardship on victims and is likely
to clog the courts.

Pierre Sylvestre of Montreal litigation boutique Sylvestre
Fafard Painchaud asked, "We are going to be forced to file 10
class actions instead of one, and then what are the courts going
to do?"  He pointed out that the ruling would only result in
more class actions, more defendants, and more legal fees.


CENTENE CORP: Parties Seek Consolidation of Mo. Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corp. and plaintiffs are both seeking to consolidate the
securities fraud class actions filed against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Two class action lawsuits were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors, one in July, and one in
August.  Both were filed on behalf of purchases of the company
common stock from June 21, 2006 through July 17, 2006.

The suits allege that the company and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false statements prior to the announcement
of our fiscal 2006-second quarter results.

According to the suits, these allegedly materially false
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
our common stock, which subsequently dropped after the issuance
of a press release announcing our preliminary fiscal 2006-second
quarter earnings and revised guidance.

All parties have sought consolidation of the suits, according to
the company's Oct. 24, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene
Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-1142," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

     (1) Brower Piven at The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland
         21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
         hoffman@browerpiven.com;

     (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

     (3) contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-800-347-1236,
         E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com;

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com; and

     (5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Former Wis. Chrysler Worker Takes Case Online
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Franke, a Janesville, Wisconsin resident started a Web site
in hopes of to drumming up interest in filing a class action
against DaimlerChrysler for hiring workers under what she feels
were false pretenses, Alex Gary of The Rockford Register
reports.

According to the 37-year-old single mother of two teenage
daughters, she quit a solid job in Janesville to work at
Chrysler's assembly plant in Belvidere this summer for what she
thought was a full-time permanent position.

Ms. Franke said that she didn't learn it was a temporary
position until employee orientation, a charge Chrysler officials
deny, and that by then it was too late to get her old job back.

She is one of the about 600 workers who were hired under two-
year contracts to work at the Belvidere plant, according to the
company.  The temporary positions have caused quite a stir among
auto-industry experts as they offer fewer benefits than other
workers at the same plant.

The contracts started at about the same pay as in the past, $18
an hour.  However, they don't include automatic increases and
take eight months for reduced insurance benefits to kick in.

They also do not guarantee continued employment when it ends. In
addition, it permits the company to terminate employment at any
time during the two years.

Ms. Franke learned of the last part the hard way.  According to
her, the company let her go on Sept. 16, just three months into
the contract.

The Web site http://www.enhancedfight.comwas started by Ms.
Franke in an attempt to reach other enhanced temporary workers,
as the company classifies them.  She also launched a Yahoo.com
chat room for fellow temporary workers to vent.

Ms. Franke says that she and other like her quit jobs under the
assumption they were bettering their lives.  She alludes that
never once in the hiring process did the words "temporary" or
"enhanced temporary" ever come up.

She added that she knows of people who gave up jobs they'd had
more than 10 years to work (at the assembly plant) and that
there's no way they would have done that for a temporary job.

Since she was let go by the company, Ms. Franke has been unable
to find work in Janesville.  She's looking for a job at a time
when the area is filled with former General Motors workers who
took buyouts from the Janesville GM plant where vehicles the
Yukon, Yukon XL, Tahoe and Suburban are assembled.

Rockford attorney Jim Pirages, who handles workplace issues,
pointed out that Ms. Franke would encounter difficulties in
making a case.  He pointed out that it's going to be a "factual
case," wherein Ms. Franke will have to prove the company
misrepresented itself.

Mr. Pirages also doubted the possibility of Ms. Franke's
complaints making it into the courts, since DaimlerChrysler has
a negotiated contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) and
disputes are usually handled through an agreed-to grievance
process.

However, Ms. Franke said she would still try to gather support
for a class action, since the UAW has been no help.  She
explains, "They collected our union dues but did nothing when we
were being pushed around and then let go.  We kept being told
'the international is getting involved' or 'it's going to the
(National Labor Relations Board).' "

There's no indication so far that either group is getting
involved.  Greg Ramsay of the NLRB in Peoria, which handles the
Rock River Valley area, said no charges have been filed from the
Belvidere plant since October 2005.

Roger Kerson, a spokesman for the international UAW, said he was
going to check on whether any grievances had been filed over
Chrysler's hiring or treatment of temporary workers, but no the
results were forthcoming.


EQ INDUSTRIAL: Judge Protects N.C. Plant Explosion Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle issued an order
stopping the cleanup at a waste disposal site owned by EQ
Industrial Services and EQ Holding in Apex, North Carolina,
Associated Press reports.

The order was issued after four Apex residents in a class action
lawsuit asked the judge to stop work to protect evidence of an
explosion at the site and to allow defense experts to enter the
EQ property.

EQ Industrial and EQ Holding are facing a class action filed in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Raleigh Division on behalf of thousands of individuals and
businesses who suffered damages due to the explosion.

The law firms of Parker & Waichman, LLP, Greg Jones &
Associates, PA, Neblett, Beard Arsenault, Becnel Law Firm, LLC,
and The Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton filed the suit.

It alleges that the explosion and massive fire at the facility
was a result of the company's negligence, which needlessly
endangered the safety of thousands of people, damaged property
and interrupted business activity.

The lawsuit alleges that EQ's negligent actions caused a massive
chemical explosion, resulting in chlorine and other hazardous
materials to enter the air and surrounding community.  Chlorine
gas is highly toxic and was used as a chemical weapon during
World War I.

Residents and businesses in Apex, North Carolina, and
surrounding areas, suffered injuries and damages, and will
continue to suffer substantial losses into the future.

The suit seeks remedies for claims involving personal injury,
property damage and business interruption.

On Oct. 5, a chemical explosion occurred at EQ's waste storage
plant in Apex, North Carolina causing a fire that forced the
evacuation of thousands of nearby residents.

EQ Industrial Services and EQ Holding Co. were previously warned
about unsafe conditions at the facility.  EQ was cited and fined
in March 2006 for violating North Carolina regulatory waste
regulations due to its failure to properly contain hazardous
waste materials on its property.

The suit is Case No. 5:06-cv-00400-D filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under Judge
James C. Dever.

Plaintiffs' counsel:

     (1) Jason Mark, Esq. and Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. both of
         Parker & Waichman, LLP, Phone: (800) LAW-INFO or (800)
         529-4636 Toll-free, E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com,
         Website: http://www.yourlawyer.com;and

     (2) Gregory L. Jones of Greg Jones & Associates, PA, Phone:
         910-251-2240, Fax: 251-1520, E-mail:
         greg@gregjoneslaw.com.


ENRON CORP: Former Chief Gets 24 Years in Jail for Stock Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Sim Lake sentenced Jeffrey Skilling, Enron
Corp.'s former chief executive, to 24 years and four months in
prison for his role in the securities fraud at the energy
company, reports say.

Judge Lake refused a federal request for his immediate jailing,
and recommended that he start his prison term in Butner, N.C. at
a date to be set later.

Judge Lake, meanwhile, has vacated the conviction of former
Enron Corp. chief executive, Kenneth Lay, and dismissed the
indictment that was filed against him in 2004.

Mr. Lay, 64, died of coronary artery disease in July more than a
month after he and another former Enron chief executive, Jeffrey
Skilling, were found guilty of hiding financial troubles at
Enron.

Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling are defendants in a class action
brought by Enron shareholders and employees.

                        Case Background

On April 8, 2002, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP filed a consolidated class action against Enron Corp. in the
U.S. District Court in Houston.  The suit seeks relief for
purchasers of Enron publicly traded equity and debt securities
between Oct. 19, 1998 and Nov. 27, 2001.

The consolidated complaint charges certain Enron executives and
directors, its accountants, law firms, and banks with violations
of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants
engaged in massive insider trading while making false and
misleading statements about Enron's financial performance.

Shareholders in the company lost billions after Enron revealed
in late 2001 it would incur losses of at least $1 billion and
would restate its financial results for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and the first two quarters of 2001, to correct errors that
inflated Enron's net income by $591 million.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) J. Mark Brewer of Brewer and Pritchard, Three Riverway,
         Ste. 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone: 713-209-2950, Fax:
         713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and

     (2) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West
         Broadway, Ste. 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-
         231-1058.


EXELON CORP: Faces Race Discrimination Lawsuit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. faces a class-action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania claiming it
discriminates against black workers in hiring, promoting,
retention, evaluation and compensation, the Courthouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiffs are:

    -- Media, Pennsylvania lawyer Vilna Gaston,
    -- senior computer analyst Virginia George,
    -- Philadelphia lawyer Stacey Barnes,
    -- electrical engineer Peter Singh,
    -- electrical engineer Tracey Woods and
    -- James Lary.

The suit alleges, among other things, that in wholly subjective
evaluations by managers, which are directly tied to annual
bonuses, black employees are regularly given "B-minus" ratings,
decreasing their bonus, although B-minus is not one of the
choices listed in Exelon's rating system.

Plaintiffs claim the entire rating system allows managers to
discriminate against black workers, and they do this, and
retaliate against those who complaint.

Plaintiffs seek:

     -- class certification under Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3), as appropriate,
        designate the named plaintiffs as representatives of the
        class and their counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- for the court to adjudge, decree and declare that Exelon
        has engaged in illegal systematic race discrimination
        against African-American and that the practices of
        Exelon complained of herein are violative of the rights
        secured to plaintiffs and members of the proposed class;

     -- for the court to issue a permanent prohibitory
        injunction prohibiting Exelon and its officers, agents,
        employees, and successors from engaging in any further
        unlawful practices, policies, or customs or racial
        discrimination and retaliation complained of;

     -- for the court to issue a permanent mandatory injunction
        requiring that Exelon adopt policies and practices that
        ensure equal treatment of all African-American employees
        and applicants and that eliminate opportunity for its
        managers and supervisors to violate the requirements of
        Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981;

     -- for the court to order Exelon to provide appropriate job
        relief to plaintiffs and class members in the form of
        promotions for persons who should have been in higher-
        level jobs at the time of judgment and any other job
        relief determined appropriate;

     -- for the court to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs
        and against Exelon for all available remedies and
        damages under law and equity, including, but not limited
        to, back pay, front pay, and past and future mental
        anguish and pain and suffering in amounts to be
        determined at trial;

     -- for the court to order Exelon to pay punitive damages to
        plaintiffs in amounts to be determined at trial;

     -- for the court to order Exelon to pay attorneys' fees,
        costs and expenses and expert witness fees of plaintiffs
        associated with this action;

     -- for the court to grant such other and further legal and
        equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the
        court may deem just or equitable; and

     -- for the court to retain jurisdiction until such time as
        the court is satisfied that Exelon has remedied the
        unlawful and illegal practices complained of and is
        determined to be in full compliance with the law.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13fd

The suit is "Gaston et al. v. Exelon Corporation, Case No. 2:06-
cv-04762-BWK," filed in the U.S. District Court under Judge
Bruce W. Kauffman.

Representing plaintiffs is Robert T. Vance, Jr. of the Law
Offices of Robert T. Vance, Jr., 100 S. Broad St., Suite 1530,
Philadelphia, PA 19110, Phone: 215-557-9550, Fax: 215-772-0600,
E-mail: rtvance@aol.com.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wary of Drug Prices Revamp, First DataBank Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Inc. stated in a quarterly report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that possible changes in
pricing benchmarks for prescription drugs could hurt its bottom
line, according to MarketWatch.

According to the company, recent events have raised uncertainty
about whether the prescription-drug industry will continue to
use drug average wholesale prices as a calculation.

The SEC filing specifically noted that First DataBank, Inc., one
of several companies that report prescription drug price data,
was sued.

That suit was tentatively settled with First DataBank agreeing
to lower the reported average wholesale price of certain drugs
by 4%, the filing said.

As part of the settlement, filed on Oct. 5, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, First
DataBank, a unit of Hearst Corp., has agreed to eventually stop
publishing its controversial list of wholesale medicine prices
that several critics have blamed for driving up drug costs
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2006).

Lowering the average wholesale prices will reduce the spread
between what pharmacies pay for drugs and what health plans pay
pharmacies.  Essentially, the smaller spread means lower prices
for health plans.

The company noted that the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts has not given preliminary or final approval to
the settlement of the civil class action, "New England
Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First DataBank et al."

However, Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit management (PBM)
company pointed out that that the proposed reduction could have
a material adverse effect on the margin it earns on home
delivery transactions.

The company added that the price change could also disrupt its
retail networks due to the "adverse impact" on average wholesale
price-based retail pharmacy pricing.

The Maryland Heights, Missouri-based PBM though noted that its
contracts with clients and retail pharmacies have terms that
will enable it to mitigate the adverse effect of the proposed
reduction in First DataBank's reported average wholesale price.

                       Case Background

Filed on June 2, 2005, the suit alleges that the First DataBank,
which produces a list of the average wholesale price of numerous
drugs, conspired with drug wholesaler McKesson Corp. to
manipulate the price of medicines to benefit that company's
customers.

McKesson Corp. is not part of the settlement.  In a press
statement, it maintains that it did not conspire with First
DataBank to raise the published average wholesale prices of
drugs.

The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) George E. Barrett of Barret Johnston & Parsley, 217
         Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201-1601, Phone: 615-
         244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com;

     (2) Jennifer Fountain Connolly of The Wexler Firm, LLC,
         2000 One LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-
         346-2222, Fax: 312-346-0022, E-mail: jfc@wtwlaw.us;

     (3) Barbara Mahoney of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, US,
         Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail:
         barbaram@hbsslaw.com; and

     (4) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., 1818 Market Street,
         Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-496-
         0300, Fax: 215-496-6611,
         E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site:
         http://www.srk-law.com.


UNITED STATES: Judge Halts MNG Reimbursement Suit Pending Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns has stayed a
purported class action filed by four Massachusetts National
Guardsmen against the government, MassLive reports.

Judge Stearns is giving the National Guard time to agree with
soldiers regarding claims within 60 days.  If the parties fail
to reach a resolution, Judge Stearns will rule on two motions:
dismiss the lawsuit or transfer it to the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims; or broaden it into a class action.

Four soldiers filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in January.  They are claiming that
they were denied reimbursement for meals, travel and lodging
while guarding potential targets after the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks.

The suit named as plaintiffs all U.S., Massachusetts, Army and
Massachusetts National Guard officials; and as defendants,
leaders at the Massachusetts National Guard Command Center who
denied the reimbursements (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20,
2006).

Specific plaintiffs named are Wayne R. Gutierrez, of New
Bedford, Mass., Sgt. Steven M. Littlefield, and Joseph P.
Murphy, a specialist at Camp Edwards.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Sgt. Louis Tortorella, of New
Hampshire, died in March 2006 of heart attack.

It seeks $73 million in compensation and argues there could be
as many as 1,000 Massachusetts National Guard soldiers who
deserve reimbursements.

Defendants had motioned to dismiss the lawsuit, but Judge
Stearns ruled in August that he was going to defer his decision
on the request until after the Guard completed an audit designed
to fix the pay discrepancy.

The plaintiffs moved for an injunction, but Judge Stearns
reaffirmed his opinion to wait for the result of the audit.  The
audit includes a review of more than 500 sets of orders, room
receipts and duty logs.  The National Guard has proposed a 60-
day time frame to complete the process.

The suit is "Tortorella et al. v. U.S. of America et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-10054-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Richard G. Stearns.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John R. Shek of Weston, Patrick, Willard & Redding, PA,
         84 State Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA 02109-2299,
         Phone: 617-742-9310, Fax: 617-742-5734, E-mail:
         jrs@wpwr.com; and

     (2) Constance A. Driscoll of Stevens Law Office, 127
         Mountain Road, P.O. Box 1200, Stowe, VT 05672, US,
         Phone: 802-253-8547, Fax: 802-253-9945, E-mail:
         constance.driscoll@stowelawyers.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Mark T. Quinlivan, United States Attorney's Office, 1
         Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, Phone: 617-748-3606,
         Fax: 617-748-3969, E-mail: mark.quinlivan@usdoj.gov;
         and

    (ii) Brian M. Donovan, Office of the Attorney General, Room
         1813, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
         617-727-2200, Fax: 617-727-3076, E-mail:
         brian.donovan@ago.state.ma.us.


NASUTRA LLC: Recalls Dietary Supplement Over Undeclared Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nasutra, LLC, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of
all the company's dietary supplement product that is sold under
the brand name Nasutra.

Finished product from several lots of Nasutra was tested and
preliminarily found to contain an analogue of an ingredient in
an FDA-approved drug.

Analytical tests conducted by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) of Nasutra samples from two lots concluded that the
products contained acetildenafil.

Acetildenafil is an analogue of sildenafil.  Sildenafil is the
active pharmaceutical ingredient in Viagra, an FDA-approved drug
that is used to treat erectile dysfunction (ED).  Acetildenafil
is close in structure to sildenafil and is expected to possess a
similar pharmacological and adverse event profile.

This poses a threat to consumers because acetildenafil may
interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as
nitroglycerin) and lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.
Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
or heart disease often take nitrates.

ED is a common problem in men with these conditions, and they
may seek products to enhance sexual performance.  Additionally,
acetildenafil, like sildenafil, may cause side effects, such as
headaches and flushing.

The company is taking this voluntary action because it is
committed to providing accurate information on the label of its
products and because it is always concerned with the health of
persons who have consumed this product.

The company is reviewing the procedures and policies of all
firms involved with the manufacture of the product to ensure
that there will be no future issues with regard to Nasutra's
composition and labeling.

The company is working closely with the FDA in the recall
process and is committed to the quality and integrity of its
products. It sincerely regrets any inconvenience to consumers
and its other customers and the incomplete Nasutra labeling
information.

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

The company is advising consumers to return any unused Nasutra,
for a refund of the full purchase price, to the retail location
from which it was purchased or to the company directly if it was
purchased from the company as a part of its Direct Response
Program.  Consumers can call 1-800-568-3374 to receive
instructions for returning the product.  Additional information
is provided on the company's website:
http://www.nasutra.com/recall.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corp. is a defendant in the purported class
action, "Waldbuesser, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et
al.," which accuses the company of mismanaging workers' 401(k)
plans, according to its Oct. 24, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.

On Sept. 28, 2006, various individual plaintiffs filed the class
action in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, against the company, certain of its administrative
and Board committees, all members of the company's Board of
Directors, and certain company officers and employees.

The lawsuit alleges two alternative counts of fiduciary duty
breaches under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 with respect to alleged excessive, hidden and/or otherwise
improper fee and expense charges to the Northrop Grumman Savings
Plan and the Northrop Grumman Financial Security and Savings
Plan (each of which are 401(k) plans).

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
removal of individuals acting as fiduciaries to such plans,
payment of attorney fees and costs, and an accounting.

Specifically, the 45-page complaint accuses the corporation, its
savings plan administrative committee, its investment committee
and 16 individuals of "breach of fiduciary duty," (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006).

It specifically stated that the plan sponsor is accused of
failing to fulfill its fiduciary duty to make certain that the
401(k) plan operates with appropriate expenses.

According to the suit, the most certain means of increasing the
return on employees' 401(k) savings is to reduce the fees and
expenses employees pay from their 401(k) accounts.  It also
stated that unlike generalized market fluctuations, employers
could control these fees and expenses with federal law requiring
them to do so.

The suit is also alleging that the plan is filled with "shadow
index funds" that are collecting the much higher fees of managed
funds.  In effect, according to the suit, workers are paying for
something -- active management -- but not getting it.  And that,
the suit asserts, is where the company and its executives have
breached their fiduciary duty.

According to the lawsuit, all of the company's nine fund
offerings that claim active management have scored as shadow
index funds over the last six years.

As a consequence, the suit contends, corporate management may
have set employees up to pay two or three times as much in fees
as management's fiduciary duty would dictate.

The suit is "Waldbuesser, et al. v. Northrop Grumman
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06213-R-JC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge Jacqueline
Chooljian.

For more details, contact Mary L. Perry and Jerome J. Schlichter
of Schlichter Bogard and denton, 100 South Fourth Street, Suite
900, St Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-621-6115, E-mail:
mperry@uselaws.com and jschlichter@uselaws.com.


OWENS CORNING: Tex. Couple Files Suit in Ohio v. 401(k) Overseer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Owens Corning-appointed committee that oversaw an employee
401(k) savings plan faces a purported class action that was
filed by a Texas couple that formerly worked for the Toledo-
based company, The Toledo Blade reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio and comes just prior to the Fortune 500 firm's
emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Filed on Sept. 1, 2006,
no hearings have been set for the case.

It alleges that the company's rules kept their savings tied up
in company stock that dropped in value and cost them thousands
of dollars in retirement savings.

The case, filed by Britton C. and Sandra K. Brown, of Canyon,
Texas, seeks class action status for all former and current
company employees who may have suffered similar losses.  The
Browns had both worked for Owens Corning and participated in the
company's 401(k) plan.

Before the company filed for bankruptcy protection in October
2000, the value of the firm's stock plunged, but employees'
sales of company stock in their own 401(k) accounts were
restricted.

According to Greg Porter, the couple's Washington, D.C.-based
attorney, it wasn't filed sooner because earlier lawsuits
focused almost exclusively on shareholder lawsuits, and
responsibility for retirement accounts "was sort of off the
radar."

The 401(k) plan allowed workers to invest some of their salary,
along with a partial match by the company, into a deferred
retirement account.

Named as defendants are:

      -- the company's investment review committee,
      -- the company's benefits review committee,
      -- company officials involved in the process,
      -- the company's savings and security plan, and
      -- Richard C. Tober, the plan's administrator during and
         prior to 2000.

The Browns contend that the savings plan restricted employee's
ability to shift savings into less risky investments than
company stock.

In 1999, 100 percent of all matching contributions by the
company and 50 percent of all profit sharing were in company
stock.

The suit alleges that the money, in the form of stock, was
"locked up" and unavailable to workers unless they were
terminated or had reached age 65.

In January 2000, restrictions were eased to allow employees to
invest future company matches in other things beside company
stock.  And in February, workers could redirect elsewhere a
third of their pre-2000 earnings.

Employer contributions were still locked up by Sept. 29, 2000,
when many restrictions were lifted.  However, the suit contends
that by that time, company stock had dropped to $2.75 a share,
from $19.31 in January.

The couple contends that they and other employees suffered
"substantial losses" to their accounts because of breached
fiduciary responsibilities.  The Browns asked to have their
losses restored.

The suit is "Brown, et al. v. Owens Corning Investment Review
Committee, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-02125-JZ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge
Jack Zouhary.

Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory Y. Porter of McTigue &
Porter, Ste. 350, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20015, Phone: 202-364-6900, Fax: 202-364-9960, E-mail:
http://www.mctiguelaw.com.


REX ENERGY: Bridgeport Families File Air Pollution Suit in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy Operating Corp. of State College, Pennsylvania faces
a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Illinois over allegations that it knowingly
polluted the air with poisonous gas.

Two Bridgeport, Illinois area families filed the lawsuit on Oct.
17, 2006.  It is alleging that oil wells operated by Rex Energy
throughout the Bridgeport area in Southeastern Illinois are
polluting the families' homes and community, and endangering
their health, by emitting "dangerous" levels of a chemical known
as hydrogen sulphide (H2S).

H2S is a poisonous gas categorized as an "extremely hazardous
substance" under federal law.  Exposure to high levels of
hydrogen sulphide can cause death.  Exposure to lower levels can
cause permanent neurological injury, as well as respiratory,
cardiac and other serious health problems.

Attorneys who filed the class action hope to eventually
represent the entire city of Bridgeport.  Residents will find
out exactly what kind of chemicals are in the air at a public
meeting next week.

The suit came after several residents living near the oil wells
brought complaints to the mayor of being sick.  As those
complaints piled up Congressman John Shimkus got involved and
asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take a
look.  Later, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry also got involved.

According to attorney Shawn Collins of Chicago, the federal
government had been here doing testing over the summer, and has
found very high levels of H2S all over town.

Mr. Collins is representing Lisa Thompson and Julia Leib in the
class action against Rex Energy, the company that operates the
oil wells.  He says the level of H2S gas, that's naturally
emitted from these wells, is so high that it can't be measured
by standard equipment.

The lawsuit says not only has the company been careless, but
also they have been willfully wanton, reckless about what's
happening, according to Mr. Collins.

It currently seeks:

      -- a court order to stop Rex from continuing this
         contamination;

      -- the establishment of a fund to monitor and treat local
         citizens for ill health affects caused by hydrogen
         sulphide exposure;

      -- a monetary award to the families for injury to their
         property use; and

      -- punitive damages against Rex for their "willful and
         wanton" behavior.

In a press statement, Ben Hulbert, company spokesperson for the
company, said that they would vigorously defend itself against
the lawsuit.

He said that plaintiffs' allegations that the oil company has
created serious risks to human health are false.   Mr. Hulbert
maintains that the case represents a distortion of the results
of monitoring activity that was conducted recently by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1410

The suit is "Leib et al v. Rex Energy Operating Corp., Case No.
3:06-cv-00802-JPG-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois under Judge J. Phil Gilbert with
referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Shawn M. Collins, The Collins Law Firm, 1770 N. Park
         Street, Suite 200, Naperville, IL 60563, Phone: (630)
         527-1595 x 221, E-mail: smc@collinslaw.com, Web site:
         http://collinslaw.com/Bridgeport.html;

     (2) Norman B. Berger of Varga, Berger, et al., Cook County
         224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 350, Chicago, IL
         60604, Phone: 312-341-9870, Fax: 312-341-2900, E-mail:
         nberger@vblhc.com; and

     (3) Richard A. Green of Feirich, Mager, et al., Generally
         Admitted, 2001 West Main Street, P.O. Box 1570,
         Carbondale, IL 62903, Phone: 618-529-3000, E-mail:
         rgreen@fmgr.com.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: CFO Says "Lights" Case Could Cost Firm $125M
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action related to the marketing of light cigarettes
could cost Reynolds American, Inc., about $125 million, mostly
in 2007 and 2008, says Dianne M. Neal, its Chief Financial
Officer, MarketWatch reports.

Smokers of light cigarettes, including lead plaintiff Barbara
Schwab, allege the largest tobacco companies misled the public
by marketing light cigarettes as a safer alternative to regular
cigarettes.  Together, these smokers are seeking more than $200
billion in damages.

The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.

Named defendants in the suit are:

     -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit;
     -- Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.;
     -- Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit;
     -- Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; and
     -- British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco
        (Investments) Ltd.

On Oct. 3, 2006, Philip Morris USA and other defendants asked
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay all
proceedings in the Schwab class action and to allow an immediate
appeal of the class certification ruling in the case by Judge
Jack Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2006).

Last month, Judge Weinstein certified "Schwab" as nationwide
class action, making it the biggest legal threat facing the
tobacco industry.  Other defendants in the case include Altria
Group Inc.'s (MO) and Philip Morris USA.  Unless a stay is
granted in the case, the trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 22,
2007.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a temporary stay in all proceedings in the Schwab class
action until the three-judge panel reviews the issues involved
on Dec. 5, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct 26, 2006).

In discussing the third-quarter results, Ms. Neal pointed out
that a shortage in packaging materials resulted in inventory
issues.  In a conference call, she says, "The inconvenience this
has caused wholesalers and retailers is regrettable.

Ms. Neal added, "There's still some issues with a few remaining
SKUs (stock keeping units) but they are being resolved quickly -
in fact, we expect to have this behind us in the next few
weeks."

According to Ms. Neal, tobacco-related ballot initiatives, such
as proposed smoking bans and cigarette taxes, are too close to
call.  The company has spent $40 million to campaign against
such proposals.

Earlier, the Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based tobacco company
posted third-quarter results, with profit up 45% over the year-
earlier period, and raised its full-year earnings guidance -
both beating Wall Street expectations.  Shares of Reynolds' rose
2.9% in recent trading, up $1.87 to $66.27.

The company said third-quarter net income rose 45% to $309
million, or $1.05 a share, from $213 million, or 72 cents a
share, in the year-earlier period.

Adjusted earnings rose to $1.09 a share from $1.08 a share.
Revenue in the third quarter rose to $2.19 billion from $2.15
billion.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call forecast third-quarter
earnings of $1.02 a share and revenue of $2.16 billion, on
average.

A copy of Judge Weinstein's 540-page Memorandum & Order and the
Motion for Immediate Stay, are available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1252
            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13bc

The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein with
referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Mark A. Belasic of Jones, Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue,
         North Point, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-
         3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:
         mabelasic@jonesday.com;

     (2) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citigroup
         Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4675,
         Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900, E-mail:
         peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com; or David M. Bernick of
         Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Il
         60601, Phone: (312) 861-2148;

     (3) Judith Bernstein-Gaeta of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth
         Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 942-
         5000, E-mail: judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com; or
         Anthony D. Boccanfuso of Arnold & Porter, 399 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax:
         212-715-1399, E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com;
         and

     (4) Frances Bivens of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

      (i) Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
          P.L.L.C, 1100 New York Avenue N.W. West Tower, Suite
          500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600 and
          (888) 347-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, Web site:
          http://www.cmht.com/;and

     (ii) William P. Butterfield of Finkelstein Thompson &
          Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007,
          Phone: 202-337-8000, Fax: 202-337-8090, E-mail:
          wpb@ftllaw.com.


STARBUCKS CORP: Recalls 8-Cup Coffee Brewers Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Coffee Company, of Seattle, Washington, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 73,000 units of Starbucks Barista Aroma Stainless Steel 8-
Cup Coffee Brewers.

The company said the coffee brewer has defective electrical
wiring that can result in overheating, smoking, burning and
melting, posing a possible fire hazard.

Starbucks has received 23 reports of melting in the plastic
housing of the brewers. No injuries have been reported.

This recall includes the Starbucks Barista Aroma 8-Cup Coffee
Brewer only.  "Starbucks Barista Aroma" is embossed on the front
of the brewer and the brewer has silver control panel buttons
and a chrome finish.  The Starbucks Barista Grande 12-Cup Coffee
Brewer and Starbucks Barista Solo Coffee Brewers are not
included in this recall.

These coffee brewers were manufactured in China and are being
sold at Starbucks company-owned and operated stores nationwide
between March 2005 and September 2006 for about $100.

Picture of the recalled coffee brewer:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07006.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled coffee brewers
immediately and contact Starbucks for a full refund.  Consumers
will receive a postage-paid package along with instructions on
how to return their brewer.  Starbucks is also offering a coupon
(valid through 1/31/07) for a free pound of coffee as an
incentive to return the recalled machine.

For more information, contact Starbucks' Barista Aroma recall
hotline at (800) 453-1047 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. MT (11 a.m.
and 11 p.m. ET), or visit the company's Web site:
http://www.starbucks.com.

Consumers may also write to Starbucks Coffee Company at Customer
Relations, Starbucks Coffee Company, mailstop S-RC1, P.O. Box
3717, Seattle, WA 98124-3717.


SONY ENERGY: Recalls Laptop Computer Batteries For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Energy Devices Corp., of Japan, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
340,000 rechargeable, lithium ion batteries containing Sony
cells used in Fujitsu Computer Systems Corp. Gateway Inc., Sony
Electronics Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems Inc.
notebook computers and an additional 3,080,000 battery packs
sold worldwide.

The company said these lithium ion batteries can overheat,
posing a fire hazard to consumers.

There have been 16 reports of notebook computer batteries
overheating, causing minor property damage and two minor burns.
All of these reported incidents and injuries have been
associated with earlier recalls of notebook computer batteries
containing these Sony cells.  There have been no incidents
involving batteries sold by the notebook manufacturers
participating in this announcement.

These lithium ion batteries were sold with, or sold separately
to be used with, the following notebook computer models:

Computer              Computer Model             Battery Model
Manufacturer

Fujitsu               LifeBook: P1510, P1510D,   CP229720-01,
                      P7120, P7120D, S7020,      CP229725-01,
                      S7020D, C1320D, Q2010,     CP234003-01,
                      T4210                      CP234019-01,
                                                 CP255100-01,
                                                 CP255108-01,
                                                 CP267910-01,
                                                 CP267915-01,
                                                 CP283030-01,
                                                 CP293420-01

Gateway               Gateway: CX200, CX210,     916C4610F,
                      E100M, M250, M255, M280,   916C4720F,
                      M285, M465, M685, MP8708,  916C4730F,
                      NX260, NX510, NX560,       916C5010F,
                      NX860, NX100, MX1025,      W230
                      MX6918b, and MX1020j

Sony                  Sony VAIO: VGN-FE550G,     VGP-BPS3A,
                      VGN-FE570G, VGN-T240P,     VGP-BPS2B
                      VGN-T250, VGN- T250P,
                      VGN-T260P, VGN-T270P,
                      VGN-T340P, VGN-T350,
                      VGN-T350P, VGN-T360P,
                      VGN-T370P

Toshiba               Portege: M300, M400/M405,   PA3191U-4BRS,
                      S100/S105                   PA3356U-2BRS,
                      Qosmio: G35                 PA3475U-1BRS,
                      Satellite: R10/R15          PA3191U-5BRS,
                      Tecra: A2, M3, M4, M5, M6,  PA3356U-3BRS,
                      and S3                      PA3476U-1BRS

The battery model can be found on the battery's label.

These lithium ion batteries were manufactured in Japan, China,
Taiwan and Malaysia and sold directly by Fujitsu Computer
Systems Corporation, Gateway Inc., Sony Electronics Inc., and
Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. and through authorized
distributors as part of a notebook computer.  The computers sold
for between $500 and $3000 and the batteries were also sold
separately for between $75 and $200, during the following dates:

     -- Fujitsu - from June 2005 through October 2006.
     -- Gateway - from September 2005 through October 2006.
     -- Sony - from December 2004 through October 2006
     -- Toshiba - from September 2004 through October 2006.

Pictures of the recalled lithium ion batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011f.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011g.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011h.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011i.jpg

Consumers are advised to remove the affected batteries from
notebook computers until they contact their computer
manufacturer and receive further instructions.  Batteries
covered by this program will be replaced free of charge.
Consumers should use only batteries obtained from their computer
manufacturer or from an authorized reseller.

Customers are advised to contact the manufacturer of their
notebook computer to determine if their battery is covered by
this program and to request a replacement battery.

The contact information for the participating manufacturers is:

     -- Fujitsu - Phone: (800) 8FUJITSU, Website:
        http://www.computers.us.fujitsu.com/battery

     -- Gateway - Phone: (800) 292-6813, Website:
        http://www.gateway.com/battery

     -- Sony - Phone: (888) 476-6972, Website:
        http://esupport.sony.com/battery

     -- Toshiba - Phone: (800) 457-7777, Website:
        http://www.bxinfo.toshiba.com


TRAVEL COS: Nassau County Tax Remits Suit Names 17 Defendants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against 17
online hotel-booking operators for shortchanging the county
millions of dollars in tax receipts, Newsday.com reports.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Hotels.com, LP,
     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC,
     -- Hotwire, Inc.,
     -- Trip Network, Inc.,
     -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.,
     -- Expedia, Inc.,
     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp.,
     -- Lowestfare.com, Inc.,
     -- Maupintour Holding, LLC,
     -- Orbitz, Inc.,
     -- Orbitz, LLC,
     -- Priceline.com, Inc.,
     -- Site59.com, LLC,
     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.,
     -- Travelocity.com, LP,
     -- Travelweb, LLC, and
     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

The suit the travel companies are paying the county hotel tax
based on a wholesale price for hotel rooms, yet charging
customers tax based on a higher retail price. It states those
extra tax receipts are due to the counties and states (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006).

Though declining to divulge details on how much money the county
is losing in tax revenues, Mr. Suozzi pointed out that taxpayers
of Nassau County are being "ripped off by these companies."

However, hotel-booking agencies dismissed Mr. Suozzi's charge as
baseless, the report said.

Art Sackler, Executive Director for Interactive Travel Services
Association, which represents a handful of the defendants, said
similar lawsuits have been filed in jurisdictions including Los
Angeles and Miami, but hotel-booking operators have yet to pay
any settlements or damages.

The suit is labeled a "class-action complaint," though it would
ultimately be up to a federal judge to determine whether other
government entities can join the suit as plaintiffs, according
to the report.

Mr. Suozzi said he hopes New York City and other government
entities in the state will seek to join the lawsuit.  He adds
that the City of New York will be excited about the action to
recoup the money.

In 2004, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance
issued an advisory opinion stating that online travel companies
are not required to collect hotel taxes.  The hotels themselves,
according to the ruling, are obligated to collect and remit tax
to state and local governments.

Mr. Sackler said the hotels determine locally how much tax the
online operators charge, with the online outfits then returning
the tax to the hotels, which are then expected to turn it over
to the county.

The suit is "County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05724-ADS-WDW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Arthur D.
Spatt with referral to Judge William D. Wall.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Peter James Clines, Chief, Bureau of Affirmation
         Litigation, Office of the Nassau County Attorney, 1
         West Street, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-571-3056;
         and Lorna Goodman, Nassau County Attorney, Office of
         the Nassau County Attorney, 1 West Street, Mineola, NY
         11501, Phone: 516-571-3056, E-mail:
         lgoodman@nassaucountyny.gov;

     (2) Paul Kleidman and Joseph Lipofsky both of Zwerling,
         Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd
         Floor, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax:
         212-371-5969, E-mail: pkleidman@zsz.com or
         jlipofsky@zsz.com; and Robert S. Schachter of Zwerling,
         Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 990 Stewart Avenue, Suite
         600, Garden City, NY 11530, Phone: 516-832-9600, Fax:
         516-832-9605, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com.


UNITED STATES: Groups Ask Judge to Release Immigrants in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, and the Stanford Law School
Immigrants' Rights Clinic asked a federal judge to put an
immediate end to the illegal detention of four immigrant
detainees who are being held indefinitely in Southern
California.

"These people have been kept away from their families, their
communities, and their lives for years -- as many as four years
or more -- without even a hearing to determine if their
prolonged detention is justified," said Ahilan Arulanantham, an
ACLU of Southern California staff attorney.  "Many of them are
refugees, and others are immigrants with U.S. citizen spouses,
children, and full lives in Southern California.  Yet they are
being indefinitely detained while they fight their immigration
cases. This is not what America stands for."

On Oct. 6, the ACLU asked U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter to
order the release of the four detainees, or provide them
individual hearings, after filing a class action September 25 on
behalf of people who have been held arbitrarily for years while
fighting their immigration cases.

In the lawsuit, "Mussa v. Gonzales," the ACLU noted that both
the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
have ruled that indefinite detention is prohibited.  "Six years
after the Supreme Court effectively banned unreasonably
prolonged and indefinite detention in the immigration context,
the government continues to engage in a policy of de facto
indefinite detention," the lawsuit stated.

One detainee, Reverend Raymond Soeoth, is a Chinese Christian
who fled Indonesia with his wife in 1999 to escape persecution
for practicing his faith.  He was initially allowed to work in
the United States while applying for asylum, and eventually
became the assistant minister for a church in the Riverside
area.  However, when his asylum application was denied in 2004,
the government detained him.

Rev. Soeoth is seeking to reopen his asylum case based in part
on concern that he will face persecution from Indonesia's new
government.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has prevented his removal until
his case is decided, but the government refuses to release him
from Terminal Island Federal Detention Center in San Pedro,
where he has been held for two years with no end in sight.

"I came to this country because it is a land of human rights and
freedom, but now I have been inside this jail for two years,
even though I have never committed any crime," Rev. Soeoth said.
"This is very hard for my wife and for my parish.  I hope the
government will let me out."

"It is illegal for the government to incarcerate immigrants for
months on end without even a hearing.  Immigration cases can
take years to resolve.  Prolonged incarceration deprives
immigrants of their freedom, contact with their families, and
the ability to earn a living," said Jayashri Srikantiah,
associate professor and director of the Immigrants' Rights
Clinic at Stanford Law School.

Attorneys for the ACLU have successfully won the release of
nearly a dozen people arbitrarily detained for years.  Most were
released once the ACLU filed individual lawsuits, but because
many other people remain detained and do not have lawyers to
challenge their unlawful detention, a class action lawsuit was
necessary, Arulanantham said.  One detainee plaintiff in "Mussa
v. Gonzales," has already been released since the lawsuit was
filed.

"The government's detention policy is not only unlawful and
inhumane, it is also irrational," said Judy Rabinovitz of the
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.  "The government is spending
millions of dollars locking up people whose detention serves no
purpose.  These individuals are ready to comply with conditions
of supervision, and even electronic monitoring if necessary.
There is no reason for them to be locked up for years while
their cases make their way through the courts."

The suit is "Mussa v. Gonzales et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02749-
TJH-JTL," filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of
California under Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. with referral to
Jennifer T. Lum.

Representing the petitioner are:

     (1) Ahilan T. Arulanantham, ACLU Foundation of Southern
         California, 1616 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA
         90026, E-mail: aarulanantham@aclu-sc.org, Phone: 213-
         977-9500; and

     (2) James M. Toma at Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman
         Machtinger & Kinsella, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st
         Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4590, Phone: 310-553-3610.

Representing the respondents are:

     (i) Victor M. Lawrence, Office of U.S. Immigration
         Litigation, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice,
         P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC
         20044, Phone: 202-305-8788; and

    (ii) Robert I. Lester, AUSA - Office of U.S. Attorney, Civil
         Division, 300 N Los Angeles St., Ste 7516, Los Angeles,
         CA 90012, Phone: 213-894-2434, E-mail:
         USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov.


VIRGINIA: Confident in Settling Mental Patients' Voting Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia officials are confident that they will soon resolve a
legal dispute with two people who say they were denied the right
to vote in November because they are mentally ill, Greg A. Lohr
of Style Weekly reports.

In Oct. 2, 2006, David Harvey and King D. Monroe, residents of
Central State Hospital in Dinwiddie County, filed class action
lawsuit against state officials, including Gov. Tim Kaine, Viola
Baskerville, secretary of administration, and several members of
the State Board of Elections and the Dinwiddie County Electoral
Board.

The Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (VOPA) brought
the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of the two men (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2006).

The suit is alleging that a state law surrounding absentee
ballots unfairly restricts the mentally disabled, stripping
those confined to mental hospitals of voting rights.

The disputed state law essentially states "any person who is
unable to go in person to the polls on the day of election
because of physical disability or physical illness" can vote via
mail-in, absentee ballot (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006).

According to VOPA, the law doesn't extend to those with mental
disabilities or illnesses who can't reach the polls because they
are confined.

The group contends that the law violates the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act and the men's Constitutional rights. VOPA,
the state's watchdog agency for disability rights, is thus
seeking for a revision of the law.

Aside from a revision of the law, attorneys for Messrs. Harvey
and Monroe also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in
an effort to obtain the absentee ballots in time for Election
Day. A hearing on that motion was scheduled for Oct. 24, 2006.

The State Board of Elections though has modified its policy on
providing absentee ballots.  The board decided on Oct. 6, 2006
to grant those with mental illnesses the same right as those
with physical impairments.

In essence, they were given the chance to vote by absentee
ballot, providing they are otherwise eligible to vote and cannot
make it to the polls.
David Clementson, a spokesman for Attorney General Bob McDonnell
pointed out that the policy had been "in the works" by the board
and the state Attorney General's Office even before the lawsuit
was filed.

In addition, Mr. Clementson added that the Dinwiddie registrar
mailed an absentee ballot to Mr. Monroe on Oct. 6 and that the
other plaintiff, Mr. Harvey, has not requested a ballot for the
November election, contrary to his filed complaint.

The two sides met Oct. 18 for a settlement conference with a
federal magistrate, according to Mr. Clementson.  He maintains
that the parties are confident that they'll reach a resolution
to the litigation, shortly.

However, Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal director at the Judge
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in Washington, D.C., said
that the issue was resolved years ago throughout the country.

Ms. Mathis explains that most states have recognized that people
in hospitals and nursing homes need to be accommodated to allow
them to vote, and they can't be denied the right to vote simply
because they're living in an institution.

She reiterates, "We haven't seen a lawsuit of this nature or a
problem of this nature for many years, so it was surprising to
see it resurface now."

The suit is "Harvey, et al. v. Kaine, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00653-HEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia under Judge Henry E. Hudson.

Representing the plaintiffs are Julie Colemon Kegley, Steven
Michael Traubert and Jonathan Gerald Martinis of Virginia Office
for Protection and Advocacy, 1910 Byrd Ave., Suite 5, Richmond,
VA 23230, Phone: (804) 225-2042.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Consolidated Stock Complaint Due Nov. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities fraud suit filed
against Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. have until Nov. 30, 2006 to
file their consolidated complaint.

On May 2, 2006 an investor sued Vitesse Semiconductor in federal
court, accusing the company of securities law violations.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
acquired Vitesse securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to April 26,
2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit claims that Vitesse and three individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.

Vitesse engages in the design, development, manufacturing, and
marketing of integrated circuits for systems manufacturers in
the communications and storage industries.

According to the complaint, Vitesse and three individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period that artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Specifically, the defendants:

     -- failed to properly account for credits issued to or
        requested by customers;

     -- failed to properly apply payments received to the
        appropriate account receivable; and

     -- failed to properly account for the stock options granted
        to senior officers and directors.

On April 18, 2006, Vitesse disclosed that its board of directors
had appointed a special committee to conduct an internal
investigation into past stock option grants, the timing of such
grants and related accounting and documentation.

The day after the announcement, on April 19, 2006, Vitesse's
shares plunged more than 32% to open at $2.35 (from a prior
close of $3.11) and closed that day at $2.48, down $.63.

On April 26, 2006, Vitesse announced that its previously
reported financial statements for the three months ended Dec.
31, 2005 and the three years ended Sept. 30, 2005, and possibly
earlier periods, should not be relied upon.

The company further stated that the Management Report on
Internal Control over Financial Reporting as of Sept. 30, 2005,
and the Report of KPMG LLP relating to the effectiveness of the
company's internal controls over financial reporting and
management's assessment, both included in the company's Form 10-
K for the year ended Sept. 30, 2005, should not be relied upon.

Vitesse also disclosed that the company's ongoing internal
investigation had uncovered evidence that its accounts
receivable and revenues may have been misstated.

Following this disclosure, on April 27, 2006, Vitesse's shares
sank 23.5% to $1.92, and closed that day at $1.83, down $.68.

On June 30, 2006, Judge Margaret Morrow consolidated all related
securities cases into one class action, entitled "Grasso v.
Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 06-02639."

On July 3, 2006 competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court.  A hearing
on these motions was held on Sept. 18, 2006 and on Sept. 26,
2006.  Judge Manuel L. Real would later issue an order
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

Pursuant to a Sept. 28, 2006 Stipulation and Order, lead
plaintiffs have until Nov. 30, 2006 to file their consolidated
complaint.

The suit is "Grasso v. Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 06-
02639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real.  Case
Contact: Lesley Ann Hale, Phone: 415-433-3200.


WAITING ANGELS: Faces RICO Violations Lawsuit in W.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waiting Angels Adoption Services and certain of its officers are
facing a purported class action, alleging fraud, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, The
Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit specifically alleged violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, 18
U.S.C. Section 1961, and various other Michigan statutes and
common law doctrines. It was filed against:

     -- Waiting Angels Adoption Services, a Michigan-based for-
        profit adoption agency;

     -- Waiting Angels President Simone Boraggina; and

     -- Waiting Angels Secretary and Treasurer Joseph Beauvais.

The suit alleges the adoption agency defrauds vulnerable, would-
be foster parents by demanding extra money for unspecified fees,
and threatening they will never get their babies unless they
pay.

Named plaintiffs in the suit are:

     -- Anthony and Jill Casassa both U.S. citizens residing in
        Minnesota;

     -- Toni Flenniken, a U.S. citizen residing in California;

     -- Amanda and Reece Heinrich both U.S. citizens residing in
        Michigan;

     -- Jon and Regina Lundy both U.S. citizens residing in
        Alabama; and

     -- Michael and Philly Tavolilla both U.S. citizens residing
        in New York.

Lead plaintiffs Amanda and Reece Heinrich claim that in addition
to the $12,000 adoption fee they agreed to pay, defendants
demanded an additional $1,200 "escort fee," $4,900 for an
"adoption facilitator," $441 for unspecified services, and asked
for more money to bribe Guatemalan officials.

The suit claims plaintiffs requested itemized statements, but
defendants never responded.   Other plaintiffs make similar
claims.

Plaintiffs demand judgment from the court as follows:

     -- to award damages against defendants, jointly and
        severally, for a sum of money equal to the amount of
        damages and/or losses plaintiffs have sustained or will
        sustain;

     -- to treble the amoung of said damages pursuant to 18
        U.S.C Section 1964(c) and/or M.C.L. 600.2919(a);

     -- to award prejudgment interest on the amount of damages
        and/or losses that plaintiffs have sustained;

     -- to award all costs of litigation incurred by plaintiffs,
        including their reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
        fees, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c);

     -- to award exemplary damages in an amount in excess of
        $75,000 resulting from defendant's intentional and
        malicious actions; and

     -- to award such other and further relief as the court
        deems just and equitable.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1400

The suit is "Heinrich et al v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services,
Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00168-RHB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under
Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joni Marie Fixel of the Fixel Law
Offices PLLC, 4990 Northwind Dr., Ste. 121, E Lansing, MI 48823,
Phone: (517) 332-3390, Fax: 517-351-7025, E-mail:
JFixel@Fixellawoffices.com.


XCELERA.COM INC: Discovery Continues in Mass. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the securities fraud lawsuit filed
against Xcelera.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

A class action was filed against Xcelera.com, Inc. on Aug. 23,
2000.  The action seeks damages for violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Xcelera
common stock between April 1, 1999 and Aug. 8, 2000.

The complaint charges Xcelera and certain of its officers with
violations of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 1, 1999, defendants issued a press release announcing
that Xcelera had acquired Mirror Image, Co., and made positive
statements in this and subsequent press releases regarding the
acquisition without disclosing that Xcelera shareholders could
have their interests significantly diluted.

The complaint further alleges that Xcelera misled investors by
failing to inform them that another corporate transaction
involving Mirror Image could cause them to incur significant tax
liabilities.

These materially misleading statements caused Xcelera's common
stock to be artificially inflated throughout the class period.
Meanwhile, Xcelera insiders took advantage of the inflated price
to sell approximately 1.6 million of their own shares.

When the truth was revealed, the price of Xcelera's stock
collapsed to $11.75 per share, dramatically below its class
period high of $112.50.

Cases were originally filed against Xcelera in four different
federal district courts.  The parties are awaiting a decision by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordering the
transfer of all cases for pretrial coordination and
consolidation to one jurisdiction.

On Oct. 10, 2000, certain plaintiffs filed a motion for
appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of their
selection of Lead Counsel.

On Jan. 31, 2001, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and
approved their selection of lead counsel, including Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
(http://www.bermanesq.com/).

On April 2, 2001, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended class action complaint, which Xcelera moved to dismiss
on May 31, 2001 and plaintiffs opposed on July 16, 2001.

On Oct. 3, 2001, the court held a hearing on defendants' motion
to dismiss, and Judge Rya Zobel issued an order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' motion on March 8, 2002.
Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on April
9, 2002.

Judge Rya Zobel issued an order granting class certification on
Sept. 30, 2004.  In early March of 2005 the defendants sought to
appeal the class certification order.

On Dec. 13, 2005 the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
Judge Zobel's September order certifying the class and the
insider trading subclass.  Discovery is ongoing.

The suit is Case No. 1:00cv11649 filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W.
Zobel.  Case Contact: Patrick T. Egan, Phone: 800-516-9926.


XETHANOL CORP: Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. Without Merit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xethanol Corp. says that a lawsuit filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York is without
merit.

Earlier, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Xethanol Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and
Aug. 8, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006).

The a biotechnology driven ethanol company and certain of its
officers and directors are charged with issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that Xethanol:

      -- misrepresented management's experience and standard of
         ethics;

      -- omitted disclosing a series of related party
         transactions and association with investors who had
         alarming records of stock fraud and related shareholder
         abuses;

      -- materially overstated the company's profitability by
         under-reporting the true costs associated with
         completing a biomass to ethanol production facility,
         and by failing to make proper adjustments to the
         company's financial reports;

      -- lacked any reasonable basis to assert that the company
         was operating according to plan or could achieve the
         near-term commercialization of biomass ethanol
         production, or achieve the guidance sponsored and/or
         endorsed by the company; and

      -- caused plaintiffs and other Class members to purchase
         Xethanol common stock at artificially inflated prices.

According to Louis Bernstein, Xethanol Corp.'s President and
interim CEO, not only are the allegations and insinuations
baseless, but also the case apparently has no lead plaintiff.

The allegations contained in the law firm's press release are
very similar in nature to those made in August of this year by
an on-line web newsletter whose owner admitted to having shorted
the shares of Xethanol in advance of the publication of its
negative article about the company.  Xethanol Corp. has already
responded to those allegations and demonstrated that they are
without foundation.

"Xethanol remains focused on our business priorities and
executing our strategy as we grow and move forward with plant
construction in Iowa and other locations as opportunities arise,
as well as our collaborative research and development programs
in cellulosic ethanol," said Mr. Bernstein.

Plaintiffs' counsel is Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-
467-1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.


XM SATELLITE: Consolidated Complaint in D.C. Stock Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Sept. 26.

On May 8, 2006 an investor sued XM Satellite seeking damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who acquired XM securities from July 28, 2005 through and
including Feb. 15, 2006.

The lawsuit claims that XM and Hugh Panero, its president and
chief executive officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and
78t of the U.S. Commerce and Trade Code, and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 Code of Federal Regulations
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, Washington-based XM and Mr. Panero
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements during the class period that
artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Specifically, the complaint says defendants led the market to
believe that XM would grow its subscriber base to 6 million by
year-end 2005, while lowering two of its "key metrics:"
Subscriber Acquisition Costs and Cost Per Gross Addition.

In reality, however, the company was allegedly well aware that
costs, especially SAC and CPGA, would skyrocket in the fourth
quarter of 2005 due to a $25 million promotional campaign to
combat the debut of the popular "Howard Stern Show" on Sirius
Satellite Radio, XM's chief competitor.

On Feb. 16, 2006, the company announced a net loss of $268.3
million for the fourth quarter of 2005, compared with $188.2
million a year earlier.  For the full 2005 year, XM's net loss
was $666.7 million, compared to $642.4 million in 2004.  In
addition, the company announced that both SAC and CPGA were much
higher than the market had been led to believe.

The market reacted swiftly to those revelations, sending the
price of XM's common stock down 5.03%, from a close of $25.25
per share on Feb. 15, 2006, to $23.98 per share the next day.
The company's stock price fell a further 10.05% to $21.57 per
share at the close of trading Feb. 17, 2006, the complaint says.

According to the complaint, Mr. Panero and other insiders
engaged in highly suspicious stock sales during the class
period, with Mr. Panero selling approximately 413,334 shares, or
98.71% of his personally held XM stock, for approximately
$8,841,161.

Collectively, company insiders sold approximately 2,769,516 of
personally held XM stock during the fourth quarter of 2005,
reaping proceeds of approximately $73,325,009.

On June 7, 2006, Judge Ellen Huvelle signed a Consolidation
Order, consolidating all related cases into one class action as
"In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. 06-0802."

On July 3, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court.  On Aug.
1, 2006, Judge Huvelle issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On Sept. 26, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
class action complaint.  Defendants have until Nov. 14, 2006 to
file their response to this complaint.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the company said it received a letter from the
staff of the SEC requesting that the company voluntarily provide
documents to the Staff regarding the company's subscriber
targets, costs associated with attempting to reach those
targets, and related matters during the third and fourth
quarters of 2005.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kimberly Anne Chadwick of Doherty, Sheridan & Persian,
         8408 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031, Phone:
         (703) 698-7700, Fax: (703) 641-9645, E-mail:
         kchadwick@dsp-law.com;

     (2) Donald J. Enright and Karen Jennifer Marcus both of
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax: (202)
         337-8090, E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com or kjm@ftllaw.com;

     (3) Burton John Fishman of Fortney & Scott, 1750 K Street,
         NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 689-
         1200, Fax: (202) 776-7801, E-mail:
         fishman@fortneyscott.com;

     (4) Nancy M. Juda of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730,
         Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-2024, E-mail:
         nancyj@lerachlaw.com;

     (5) Gary Edward Mason of The Mason Law Firm, 1225 19th
         Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         (202) 429-2290, Fax: (202) 429-2294, E-mail:
         gmason@masonlawdc.com;

     (6) Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B
         Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
         233-4565, Fax: (619) 233-0508, E-mail:
         ashingler@scott-scott.com; and

     (7) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll both of Cohen
         Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue,
         NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
         (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail:
         dsommers@cmht.com or stoll@cmht.com.

Representing the defendants are Charles Edward Davidow and
Michael A Mugmon both of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP, 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone:
(202) 663-6241 or (202) 663-6101, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail:
charles.davidow@wilmerhale.com or michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com;
and Christopher J. Herrling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, 2445 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, (202)
663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail: CHERRLING@WILMER.COM.


YUKOS OIL: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the purported class
action, "In Re Yukos Oil Company Securities Litigation," The
Associated Press reports

The suit alleged that the Russian company concealed from the
investing public the potential risk from its tax strategies and
from the political activities of its top executive.

Named defendants in the suit:

     -- Yukos Oil Company,
     -- Yukos Universal Limited,
     -- Group Menatep Limited,
     -- Scott A. Ziegler,
     -- Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
     -- Platon Lebedev, and
     -- Bruce Misamore.

The suit claimed that Yukos employed an illegal tax-evasion
scheme since 2000 and that the political activity of Yukos
President Mikhail Khodorkovsky, exposed the company to
retribution from the Russian government.

The securities-fraud complaint had sought class-action status
for purchasers of Yukos securities between Jan. 22, 2003, and
Oct. 25, 2003.

In March, the judge allowed the claims over its tax strategies
to proceed, but dismissed the other allegations.

According to the report, in 2003, the Russian government
arrested Mr. Khodorkovsky and seized his 44 percent equity stake
in the company, charging him with fraud, embezzlement and
evasion of personal income taxes. He is serving an eight-year
sentence in a prison camp.

The Russian Ministry of Taxation also concluded the company had
used an illegal tax-evasion scheme between 2001 and 2003,
underpaying its taxes by more than $27.5 billion.

The Russian government eventually confiscated Yukos' main
production facility and billions of dollars in its bank
accounts.

The suit is "In Re Yukos Oil Company Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-05243-WHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge William H. Pauley,
III.

Representing plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric James Belfi of Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100
         Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 907-0790, Fax: (212) 883-7579, E-mail:
         ebelfi@labaton.com;

     (2) Thomas James Kennedy and Brian Philip Murray both of
         Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste.
         801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212)-682-1818, Fax:
         (212)-682-1892, E-mail: tkennedy@murrayfrank.com or
         bmurray@murrayfrank.com; and

     (3) David Avi Rosenfeld, Robert M. Rothman and Samuel
         Howard Rudman all of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite
         200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-
         367-1173, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com or
         rrothman@lerachlaw.com or srudman@lerachlaw.com.

Representing defendants are:

     (i) Robert Allen Horowitz of Greenberg Traurig, LLP (NYC),
         200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-801-
         2194, Fax: 212-224-6114, E-mail: horowitzr@gtlaw.com;
         and

    (ii) Jeffrey S. Jacobson of Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP (NYC),
         919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-909-
         6479, Fax: 212-909-6836, E-mail:
         jsjacobs@debevoise.com.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Philips Increases Accrual to EUR398M
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., which does
business as Royal Philips Electronics N.V., increased to EUR398
million its asbestos-related accrual for loss contingencies
asserted through 2016.

The subsidiary was unnamed in the Company's latest Quarterly
Report filed on Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The EUR398 million represents the undiscounted estimate of
indemnity costs at Sept. 30, 2006.

This resulted in a pre-tax charge to earnings of EUR331 million
at the end of the 2006-3rd quarter. In the 2006-3rd quarter, the
amount of related insurance recoveries recognized in pre-tax
earnings totaled EUR66 million, reflecting agreements in place
with insurance carriers.

Judicial proceedings have been filed in the United States
relating to the subsidiary's activities prior to 1981, involving
allegations of personal injury from alleged asbestos exposure.

Historically, the subsidiary has established an accrual for loss
contingencies with respect to asserted claims for asbestos
product liability.

In the 2006-3rd quarter, a third-party expert provided the
Company with a projection of the subsidiary's liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims,
and provided the projection through 2016.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Royal Philips Electronics
N.V. makes consumer electronics, which accounts for about a
third of its sales. It also makes light bulbs, electric shavers
and other personal care appliances, picture tubes,
semiconductors, and medical systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Webers in Suit v. John Crane
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, First District, reversed the
judgment of an asbestos-related lawsuit in favor of Joseph and
Sheila M. Weber against John Crane Inc.

The Panel, comprised of Presiding Judge Marchiano, Judges Swager
and Stein, handed down the decision of Case No. A111421 on Oct.
18, 2006.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the Webers sued manufacturers, suppliers and
contractors, alleging that Mr. Weber developed mesothelioma from
asbestos exposure while working as a machinist, equipment
operator, and laborer for many employers at different sites.

The Webers named John Crane a defendant. The Webers alleged that
Mr. Weber had been exposed to asbestos-containing products made,
sold or supplied by John Crane from 1960 to 1964, when he worked
on or around naval vessels.

Mr. Weber died on May 10, 2006. Mrs. Weber has been appointed
his successor-in-interest.

On Jan. 6, 2005, John Crane moved for summary judgment,
asserting there was no triable issue of fact.

John Crane contended Mr. Weber's testimony showed that the
Webers could not establish that John Crane was a cause of Mr.
Weber's mesothelioma.

The Superior Court of San Francisco County granted John Crane's
motion for summary judgment, pointing out that Mrs. Weber could
move for reconsideration if she had new deposition testimony
linking John Crane to Mr. Weber's injuries.

Mrs. Weber's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.

The Appeals Court ruled that the evidence did not meet John
Crane's initial burden showing that Mr. Weber did not possess
evidence that John Crane was a cause of Mr. Weber's injuries.

The Appeals Court reversed the Trial Court's judgment.

Philip A. Harley and Deborah R. Rosenthal, of Paul, Hanley &
Harley LLP, represented Sheila M. Weber.

Philip S. Ward, Robert L. Nelder, and Richard G. Katerndahl, of
Hassard Bonnington LLP, represented John Crane Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Men Sue 129 Defendants in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Reddington and Lowell Kitzmiller, on Oct. 10, 2006, filed
separate asbestos-related lawsuits in Kanawha Circuit Court in
West Virginia, The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Reddington alleged that asbestos exposure, while working in
West Virginia, was to blame for his lung disease.

Mr. Reddington's suit names 15 defendants, of whom two are state
corporations, Vimasco of Nitro and Wheeling Rubber Products.

The suit said that Mr. Reddington worked as a bricklayer from
1963 to 1979 in the state, specifically the Virginia Electric
Power Plant in Mt. Storm, W.Va. and the Hatfield Power Plant in
Masontown, W.Va. The suit added that he worked in St. Mary's,
Moundsville, Huntington, Charleston, Institute, and Wheeling.

The four-count complaint seeks compensatory damages.

Craig Coleman of Pittsburgh, Pa. firm Caroselli, Beachler,
McTiernan, and Conboy represent Mr. Reddington.

In the second suit, 60-year-old Mr. Kitzmiller said he
contracted mesothelioma and asbestosis from years of asbestos
exposure. He said he worked as an insulator at various jobsites,
including the Mt. Storm Power Station.

Mr. Kitzmiller's suit lists 114 defendants. His wife, Karen,
seeks compensation for loss of consortium. The Kitzmillers seek
punitive damages.

Huntington, W.Va.-based attorney Timothy Eves represents Mr. &
Mrs. Kitzmiller.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case Nos. 06-C-2089 and 06-C-2092 have
been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Records $2.2M Charge for Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. recorded a US$2.2 million pre-tax charge,
US$1.6 million after-tax or US$0.03 per diluted share, related
to the completion of an update of its asbestos contingent
liability, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 19,
2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

James P. Cronin, Executive and Chief Financial Officer said,
"While claims against us have dropped significantly since our
last detailed review in 2003, our average settlement values have
increased which, when forecasted forward to estimate the
ultimate liability, necessitated an increase in our reserve of
approximately US$9 million.

"Partially offsetting the increase was a corresponding increase
in our receivable for insurance recoveries of approximately $6.7
million reflecting an overall improved insurance position as
well as reflecting the applicable insurance receivables on the
increase in the reserve.

"As of Sept. 30, 2006 our total asbestos related contingent
liabilities and related insurance receivables were US$54.6
million and US$29.5 million, respectively."

The Company's net earnings for the 2006-3rd quarter were US$25
million, or US$0.51 per diluted share on net sales of US$863
million.

Headquartered in West Paterson, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc.
produces building-block chemicals from which it makes engineered
materials, specialty chemicals, and additives used in treating
water and in industrial processes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Sues Honeywell Over NARCO Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Casualty and Insurance Co., in the 2006-2nd quarter,
sued Honeywell International Inc. and other insurance carriers,
disputing obligations for North American Refractory Co.-related
asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by
Travelers and other insurance carriers.

About US$370 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
Sept. 30, 2006.

The suit was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, County of
New York.

The Company said it believed it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New
Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products like turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety
and landing systems. The Company operates in three other
segments: Automation and Control, Specialty Materials, and
Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.469B Liabilities at 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, had US$1.469
asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$1.549 billion as
of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's quarterly report
for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related liabilities
were US$1.491 billion. (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006)

The Company defends in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
The Company did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that
have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related
disease in most of the claimants.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's insurance recoveries for
asbestos-related liabilities was US$1.140 billion, compared with
US$1.302 billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's insurance recoveries for
asbestos related liabilities were US$1.139 billion. (Class
Action Reporter, July 20, 2006)

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$100 million in insurance receipts for asbestos-related
liabilities.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$134 million asbestos-related liability payments, compared
with US$110 million for the same period in 2005.

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, was US$33
million, compared with US$32 million for the same period in
2005.

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, was US$110
million, compared with US$46 million for the same period in
2005.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products like turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety
and landing systems. The Company operates in three other
segments: Automation and Control, Specialty Materials, and
Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $33M Charge for Bendix Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., in the 2006-3rd quarter,
recognized a charge of US$33 million for its Bendix friction
materials business, according to the Company's quarterly report,
on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Included in the US$33 million charge were defense costs incurred
during the 2006-3rd quarter, net of probable insurance
recoveries.

In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company recognized a charge of
US$49 million, mainly for Bendix asbestos claims filed and
defense costs incurred during the period, including an update of
expected resolution values with respect to claims pending as of
June 30, 2006, net of probable insurance recoveries.

The asbestos related charge also included the net effect of the
settlement of certain North American Refractory Co. related
pending asbestos claims and a Bendix related insurance
settlement.

In the 2006-1st quarter, the Company recognized a charge of
US$28 million for Bendix related asbestos claims filed and
defense costs incurred during the period, net of probable
insurance recoveries.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products like turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety
and landing systems. The Company operates in three other
segments: Automation and Control, Specialty Materials, and
Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.94B for 3Q Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., for the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2006, recorded US$1.940 billion asbestos liabilities, of
which US$313 million was related to the Company's Bendix
friction materials business and US$1.627 billion was related to
former unit North American Refractories Co.

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products like high-temperature bricks and cement that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company had US$2.011
billion asbestos liabilities, of which US$302 million was for
Bendix claims and US$1.702 billion was for NARCO claims. (Class
Action Reporter, July 28, 2006)

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$1.272 billion insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities.
Of the US$1.272 billion, US$274 million was for Bendix claims
and US$998 million was for NARCO claims.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's insurance
recoveries for asbestos liabilities was US$1.293 billion. Of the
US$1.293 billion, US$273 million was for Bendix claims and
US$1.020 billion was for NARCO claims. (Class Action Reporter,
July 28, 2006)

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products like turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety
and landing systems. The Company operates in three other
segments: Automation and Control, Specialty Materials, and
Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Estimates $1.6B for NARCO Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, estimated
US$1.6 billion as settlement liability on pending and future
North American Refractory Co. asbestos claims, compared with
US$1.8 billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products like high temperature bricks and cement that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than two percent of NARCO'S products had asbestos.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company estimated its settlement
liability of pending and future NARCO asbestos claims to be
US$1.7 billion. (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006)

When the Company sold NARCO in 1986, it agreed to indemnify
NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for products that
had been discontinued prior to the sale. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO
filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code.

As a result of the NARCO filing, all of the claims pending
against NARCO are automatically stayed pending NARCO's
reorganization. Moreover, the bankruptcy court enjoined both the
filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against
Honeywell.

The US$1.6 billion estimated liability for current claims is
based on terms and conditions, including evidentiary
requirements, in definitive agreements with about 260,000
current claimants, and an estimate of the unsettled claims
pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims are expected to be completed by the end of 2007. About
US$90 million of payments due under these settlements are due
only upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded a US$998 million
insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims,
compared with US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2005.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products like turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety
and landing systems. The Company operates in three other
segments: Automation and Control, Specialty Materials, and
Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Notes 60,253 Bendix Claims in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., for the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2006, recorded 60,253 unresolved asbestos-related claims for
its Bendix friction products business, compared with 79,502
claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
3,366 Bendix claims filed and 22,615 Bendix claims resolved. For
the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 7,520 Bendix
claims filed and 4,366 Bendix claims resolved.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, Bendix had 72,174
asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006)

Bendix made automotive brake pads that had chrysotile asbestos
in an encapsulated form.

From 1981 through Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has resolved about
100,000 Bendix asbestos claims including trials covering 122
plaintiffs, which resulted in 116 favorable verdicts.

Trials covering six individuals resulted in adverse verdicts.
However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, a third
is on appeal, and the remaining three claims were settled.

About 45 percent of about 60,000 pending claims at Sept. 30,
2006 are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets
established in some jurisdictions for claimants who allege
minimal or no impairment. The average of 60,000 pending claims
also includes claims filed in jurisdictions like Texas,
Virginia, and Mississippi that historically allowed for
consolidated filings.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, about 16,000 cases were
dismissed. More than 85 percent of these dismissals occurred in
Mississippi as a result of judicial rulings relating to non-
resident filings and venue.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix asbestos claims, of which US$274 million, at Sept. 30,
2006, and US$377 million, at Dec. 31, 2005, are reflected as
receivables in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

The Company has recorded insurance receivables equal to about 50
percent of the value of the underlying asbestos claims recorded.
The Company estimates that the cumulative recoverability rate
could decline over the next five years to about 40 percent.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc.'s largest business segment, Honeywell Aerospace, makes
products like turbofan and turboprop engines and flight safety
and landing systems. The Company operates in three other
segments: Automation and Control, Specialty Materials, and
Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG's Claims Settlement Reaches $561M in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc.'s current settlement for asbestos-related
claims, as of Sept. 30, 2006, was US$561 million, compared with
US$472 million as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a Company press
release, dated Oct. 19, 2006, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's current settlement for
asbestos-related claims was US$560 million. (Class Action
Reporter, July 28, 2006)

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos-related
settlement was US$327 million, compared with US$385 million as
of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current settlement for
asbestos claims was US$321 million. (Class Action Reporter, July
28, 2006)

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
net asbestos settlement of US$6 million, compared with US$4
million for the same period in 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
net asbestos settlement of US$23 million, compared with US$16
million for the same period in 2005.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., PPG Industries Inc. makes
coatings and sealants. The Company also makes glass and
chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110 manufacturing facilities in
more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates more than 350
paint retail centers in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Has $90M Net Income in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., for the 2006-3rd quarter, reported a net
income of US$90 million, or US$0.54 a share. The Company also
reported record sales of US$2.8 billion, surpassing 2005-3rd
quarter record sales by 10 percent, according to a Company press
release, dated Oct. 19, 2006, submitted to the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Net income included after-tax charges of US$4 million, or
US$0.02 a share, to reflect the net increase in the current
value of the Company's obligation under its asbestos settlement
agreement first reported in May 2002.

Net income for the 2006-3rd quarter compared with 2005-3rd
quarter net income of US$157 million, or US$0.92 cents a share,
which included after-tax charges of US$3 million, or US$0.02 a
share, to reflect the net increase in the current value of the
Company's obligation under its asbestos settlement agreement.

For the first nine months of 2006, the Company recorded net
income of US$554 million, or US$3.33 a share, which included
after-tax charges of US$14 million, or US$0.08 a share, to
reflect the net increase in the current value of the Company's
obligation under the asbestos settlement agreement.

For the first nine months of 2005, the Company recorded net
income of US$483 million, or US$2.81 a share, which included
after-tax charges of US$10 million, or US$0.06 a share, to
reflect the net increase in the current value of the Company's
obligation under the asbestos settlement agreement.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., PPG Industries Inc. makes
coatings and sealants. The Company also makes glass and
chemicals. PPG operates nearly 110 manufacturing facilities in
more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates more than 350
paint retail centers in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Revised UK Rules to be Enforced on Nov. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, which was laid in the
United Kingdom's Parliament, would be enforced on Nov. 13, 2006,
according to a Health & Safety Executive press release dated
Oct. 20, 2006.

The revised regulations would strengthen overall worker
protection by reducing exposure limits and introducing mandatory
training for work with asbestos.

The regulations would also simplify the regulatory regime and
implement revisions to the European Union Asbestos Worker
Protection Directive.

Minister for health and safety, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said,
"These new provisions will help prevent around 6,500
occupational deaths from exposures to asbestos over the next 50
years."

The revised regulations would introduce the following changes:

-- Single control limit of 0.1 fibers per cu. cm. of air for
work with all types of asbestos;

-- Specific mandatory training requirements for anyone liable to
be exposed to asbestos;

-- Requirement to analyze the concentration of asbestos in the
air with measurements in accordance with the 1997 World Health
Organization recommended method;

-- Practical guidelines for the determination of "sporadic and
low intensity exposure" as required by the E.U. Directive; and

-- Replace three existing sets of Asbestos Regulations.

Most work with asbestos will still need to be undertaken by a
licensed contractor but any decision on whether particular work
is licensable will now be determined by the risk.

More details of what work is licensable, what training is
necessary and how to undertake work with asbestos containing
materials can be found in the Approved Code of Practice "Work
with materials containing Asbestos."

The full text of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, SI
2006/2739, can be viewed at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si200627.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Okla. Man Sues 30 Defendants in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Stone's estate, represented by his son Harold Stone, sued
30 defendant corporations in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed
in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill. on Oct. 20, 2006, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

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

The suit claimed the elder Mr. Stone was exposed to asbestos
while employed as a laborer, pipe-maker, machinist, and quality
control manager from 1950 to 2005.

According to the complaint, the elder Mr. Stone died on Jan. 4,
2005, from mesothelioma. He was diagnosed five days earlier.

In the suit, the elder Mr. Stone was an Oklahoma resident. He
worked in Illinois at a point in his career, but the suit does
not specify when or where.

The suit claimed the elder Mr. Stone's exposure to asbestos was
completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated
by the defendants.

The suit also claimed the defendants did not exercise ordinary
care and caution for the elder Mr. Stone's safety by including
asbestos in their products even though it was completely
foreseeable that people working with and around asbestos would
inhale, ingest or otherwise absorb the substance.

The younger Mr. Stone claimed the defendants included asbestos
in their products when they knew asbestos would have a harmful
effect on the health of people absorbing them. The defendants
included asbestos in their products when substitutes were
available.

The suit also alleged that the defendants failed to warn people
working with or around asbestos and failed to conduct tests on
asbestos products in order to determine the hazards to workers.

The younger Mr. Stone claimed his father was obligated to spend
money on medical expenses and experienced great physical pain
and mental anguish, which prevented him from pursuing his normal
course of employment.

Nicholas Angelides, John Barnerd, and Perry Browder of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represent the estate of Mr.
Stone.

Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Bay Authority to Pay $230T for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts ordered the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to pay at least
US$230,000 for failing to clean asbestos and other hazardous
materials from the former South Boston Power Plant, the
Associated Press reports.

A ruling in favor of the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection calls for the MBTA to pay US$130,000 to
the South Boston Community Health Center's Asthma Program.

DEP acting commissioner Arleen O'Donnell said, "Mass DEP wanted
to ensure that the South Boston community would receive a direct
environmental benefit from this agreement."

MBTA would also have to pay the state a US$100,000 penalty,
which will increase to US$326,000 if it fails to stick to a
newly established clean up schedule.

The DEP said that, in 1997, conditions at the former site of the
South Boston Power Plant were brought to its attention.
Officials found oil, asbestos and other hazardous materials
being released into the environment.

According to the DEP, the MBTA failed to notify it about the
conditions and did not properly clean or restrict access to the
area.

By 2004, the asbestos had been safely removed from the site and
the MBTA was allowed to begin demolition of the buildings. MBTA
is currently cleaning groundwater and soil on the property.

The MBTA was also ordered to submit a final outcome report to
the state by 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BNSF Railway Claims Decrease to 2,138 in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded
2,138 asbestos-related claims filed against subsidiary BNSF
Railway Co., compared with 2,204 claims at Sept. 30, 2005.

At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded 2,153 asbestos-related
claims filed against BNSF Railway. (Class Action Reporter, July
28, 2006)

For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 88
claims filed and 103 claims settled, dismissed, or resolved. For
the same period in 2005, the Company noted 234 claims filed and
150 claims settled, dismissed, or resolved.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 449
claims filed and 432 claims settled, dismissed, or resolved. For
the same period in 2005, the Company noted 719 claims filed and
441 claims settled, dismissed, or resolved.

The Company faces personal injury claims filed by employees and
non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The
heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967, until they were eliminated by 1985.

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the
Company's accrued obligations for asserted and unasserted
asbestos matters were US$314 million, compared with US$332
million for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

Of the Sept. 30, 2006 obligation, US$255 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$59 million was related to asserted
claims. At Sept. 30, 2006, US$21 million was included in current
liabilities.

It is expected that unasserted claims will continue to be filed
through the year 2050. BNSF Railway projects that about 50
percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be
incurred within the next 10 years, 70 percent within the next 15
years, and 90 percent within the next 25 years.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corp., through its main subsidiary, BNSF Railway Co., operates
as a railroad and running through tracks through 28 states in
the West, Midwest, and Sunbelt regions of the U.S. and in two
Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Inc. and certain subsidiaries were named as
defendants in three multi-party lawsuits filed in various
Mississippi courts, involving other companies as co-defendants.

The suits were filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County,
Second Judicial District, and Jasper County, First Judicial
District, in Mississippi.

Filed on August 2004, the suits seek an unspecified amount of
monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal
injury or death, including claims under the Jones Act, resulting
from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated
facilities during 1965 through 1986.

The suits are still at a very preliminary stage.

Following the recent lapse of a period of time granted by the
Special Master appointed to oversee the litigation, all
plaintiffs were required to prepare and submit "Fact Sheets" to
facilitate the determination of issues or facts like:

-- Whether the plaintiffs have a proper cause of action,

-- Which defendants are the focus of a certain plaintiff's
claim,

-- By whom a plaintiff may have been employed and the period(s)
of employment,

-- Where a plaintiff resides and whether the Mississippi courts
have jurisdiction over their alleged claim, and

-- Venue, assuming the Mississippi courts have jurisdiction.

Headquartered in Dallas, Tex., ENSCO International Inc. operates
as a drilling contractor. The Company does most of its domestic
drilling business in the Gulf of Mexico, but also operates in
the North Sea, offshore West Africa, Indonesia, Trinidad, and in
the Asia-Pacific region.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Liability Remains at $1.7B in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s long-term asbestos-related liability, for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, remained at US$1.7 billion; the
same as for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to a
Company press release dated Oct. 24, 2006.

For the quarter ended June 30, 2006, the Company's long-term
asbestos-related liability was US$1.7 billion. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

For the quarters ended Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the
Company recorded US$500 million asbestos-related insurance.

For the quarter ended June 30, 2006, the Company's long-term
asbestos-related insurance stood at US$500 million. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W.R. Grace & Co. has
restructured from six product groups into two major units.
Grace's Davison Chemicals unit makes silica-based products,
chemical catalysts, and refining catalysts that help produce
refined products from crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit
makes concrete and cement additives, packaging sealants, and
fireproofing chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $9.5M Assets, Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc.'s net asbestos-related assets and liabilities, for
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, was US$9.5 million,
compared with US$17.8 million for the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2005.

For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's net
asbestos-related assets and liabilities was US$6.5 million.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006)

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc.'s pulp and
paper division supplies water-treatment and functional
performance chemicals and services to the pulp and paper
industry. Its Aqualon unit makes thickeners for water-based
products such as latex paints, printing inks, and oral hygiene
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has 111,014 Claims in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, reported
that it faced 111,014 open asbestos-related claims filed against
it, compared with 120,880 open claims as of Dec. 31, 2005.

As of June 30, 2006, the Company reported that it faced 114,669
open asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with
128,197 claims as of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, July
28, 2006)

The Company has been named as a co-defendant in lawsuits
alleging asbestos-related personal injury claims arising from
its historical sales of boilers and railroad brake shoes.

Many of these suits involve multiple claimants, do not
specifically identify the injury or disease for which damages
are sought and do not allege a connection between any Company
product and a claimed injury or disease.

As a result, many suits have been placed, and may remain on,
inactive or deferred dockets, which some jurisdictions have
established.

As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 3,380 new claims
filed, 545 claims settled, and 12,701 claims dismissed.

As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 10,953 new claims
filed, 945 claims settled, and 12,368 claims dismissed.

At Sept. 30, 2006, the total asbestos liability was estimated at
US$678.5 million, compared with US$686 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The asbestos indemnity liability decreased by US$7.5 million
during the first nine months of 2006 due to claims payments made
during the year. The asbestos indemnity liability decreased by
US$13.4 million in 2005, from US$699.4 million as of Dec. 31,
2004 to US$686.0 million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

From receipt of its first asbestos claim to Sept. 30, 2006, the
Company has resolved 55,674 claims. The total amount of all
settlements paid by the Company and by its insurance carriers is
about US$71.9 million, for an average payment per resolved claim
of US$1,292. The average payment per claim resolved during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006 was US$580, compared with
US$924 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's long-term portion of asbestos liability, as of
Sept. 30, 2006, was US$630.7 million, compared with US$631.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's long-term asbestos receivable, as of Sept. 30,
2006, was US$381.8 million, compared with US$384 million as of
Dec. 31, 2005.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's net
asbestos indemnity liability was US$5.3 million, compared with
US$3.5 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.

Headquartered in Piscataway, N.J., American Standard Cos. Inc.
makes air-conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. Deriving over half of sales, the
Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and
commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand
names.



ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery on ASD Suit Extended to Sept. '07
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, on Sept. 12,
2006, issued an order extending through Sept. 21, 2007 the
discovery of an asbestos-related suit filed by American Standard
Companies Inc. against various insurers.

The Company is in litigation against certain carriers whose
policies it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims. The
insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the
Company's right to recovery.

In April 1999, the Company sued several of its primary and lower
layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for
environmental claims. The suit was later expanded to also seek
coverage for asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and
lower layer excess carriers and underwriting syndicates.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion to add
to the suit 16 more insurers and 117 new insurance policies.

The Court also required the parties to submit all contested
matters to mediation.

The Company and the defendants in the suit have engaged in
several mediation sessions since Jan. 18, 2006.

With the addition of the parties and policies, the suit would
resolve the coverage issues with respect to about 94 percent of
the recorded receivable. The remaining six percent of the
recorded receivable comes from policies as to which the Company
has not sought resolution of coverage.

Headquartered in Piscataway, N.J., American Standard Cos. Inc.
makes air-conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. Deriving over half of sales, the
Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and
commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand
names.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cites $387.8M Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos receivable of American Standard Companies Inc., at
Sept. 20, 2006, was US$387.8 million, compared with US$390
million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's quarterly
report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the first nine months of 2006, the asbestos receivable
decreased by US$2.2 million. Cash receipts from insurance
companies have driven the decrease, offset by the recoverable
portion of incurred legal expenses and refinements to
settlements of US$8.4 million.

In February 2005, the Company settled with Equitas Ltd. for
US$84.5 million to buy out the participants of certain
underwriters in pre-1993 Lloyd's, London policies included in
the Company's insurance coverage.

Through Sept. 30, 2006, US$17.1 million of this amount was
received by the Company to cover asbestos and environmental
costs, and US$67.4 million remains in a trust expiring Jan. 3,
2007.

Headquartered in Piscataway, N.J., American Standard Cos. Inc.
makes air-conditioning systems, plumbing products, and
automotive braking systems. Deriving over half of sales, the
Company's air-conditioning division makes consumer and
commercial systems under the Trane and American Standard brand
names.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Ordered to Pay $2.15M in Norris Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California Court, on Oct. 10, 2006, ordered Crane Co. to pay
US$2.15 million in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Joseph
Norris, according to the Company's current report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

With the US$2.15 million, the Court ordered the Company to pay
interest thereon at the rate of 10 percent per annum until paid.

A U.S. Navy veteran, Mr. Norris was exposed to asbestos while he
served as a gunner's mate onboard the U.S.S. Bremerton in the
mid-1950s.

The Court handed down the ruling of the Norris case on Sept. 15,
2006.

The Company said it does not believe that the evidence supported
the verdict. Moreover, the Company said that procedural
irregularities prevented an appropriate determination of the
Company's alleged responsibility for plaintiffs' injuries.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial products,
including fluid handling equipment, aerospace components,
engineered materials, merchandising systems, and controls. The
Company serves the power generation, general aviation,
commercial construction, food and beverage, and chemical
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow to Claim GBP150T in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edna Harrison, a 78-year widow of Brookfield, Preston in the
U.K., is claiming up to GBP150,000 in damages after her husband
John was exposed to asbestos at work, Lancashire Evening Post
reports.

Mrs. Harrison lost her 77-year old husband to mesothelioma, a
lung disease caused by exposure to asbestos.

Manchester, U.K.-based solicitors, Anthony Coombs, has filed a
writ to the High Court on her behalf.

The solicitors are claiming between GBP100,000 and GBP150,000
from Invensys International Holdings Ltd., formerly known as BTR
Industries Ltd.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Saint-Gobain Reports 2T New Claims in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain said about 2,000 new asbestos-related
claims were filed against the Company in the United States,
sharewatch.com reports.

The 2,000 claims brought the 2006 nine-month total to about
6,000, or about half the claims made during the same period in
2005.

The average cost per claim over the last 12 months was US$2,800,
and the number of outstanding claims was 86,000.

Headquartered in Courbevoie, France, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain
is a glass producer, which controls more than 1,000 companies in
five sectors: Building Distribution, Construction products, Flat
Glass, Packaging, and High-Production Materials. The Company
makes 30 billion glass containers a year and provides insulation
for 20 percent of U.S. homes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Takes on Equitas Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. signed a landmark deal to accept up to
US$7 billion of asbestos-related risks held by former investors
in Lloyd's of London, baltimoresun.com reports.

The Company took on potential claims that once threatened the
London insurance market's existence.

The Company will take over the operations of Equitas Ltd., an
affiliate created by Lloyd's in 1996 to save the market and its
investors from policies sold before 1992.

Equitas has paid more than US$17 billion in asbestos claims to
companies like General Motors Corp., Halliburton Co., and
Honeywell International Inc.

The deal may end more than a decade of concern that Equitas,
which represents 34,000 private investors with personal
liability at Lloyd's, would be unable to pay potential claims.

From 1988 to 1992, insurers in the Lloyd's market lost GBP8
billion on a series of asbestos, natural disasters and pollution
claims.

Fitch Ratings said it may raise the financial strength rating on
Lloyds from A, and Standard & Poor's changed its outlook on the
rating to positive from stable as a result of the deal. Lloyd's
will contribute about GBP90 million pounds, US$169 million, to
limit asbestos liabilities for former private investors.

Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway's owner, has made other
asbestos bets. In 2006, Berkshire boosted its stake in USG
Corp., which emerged from bankruptcy in 2001 after being sued
over asbestos-related illnesses.

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is 40
percent owned by Warren Buffett. The Company owns insurance
firms like National Indemnity, GEICO Corp., and General Re. The
Company also owns McLane Co., Dairy Queen, Clayton Homes, and
MidAmerican Energy Holdings. In 2006, the Company acquired
Business Wire, Applied Underwriters, Russell, and 80 percent of
Iscar Metalworking.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lehmann Kin Wins Compensation Suit v. ACC
----------------------------------------------------------------
After three years, the family of the late Ross Lehmann has
finally won its compensation battle against New Zealand's
Accident Compensation Corp., Times Newspapers Online reports.

A landmark Court of Appeal ruling has overturned a previous High
Court decision which saw ACC order some families to give back
compensation paid out to workers suffering the effects of
asbestos exposure on the job.

The Lehmanns were included in those ordered to give back
compensation.

In 2003, Mr. Lehmann died of asbestos-related cancer, 40 years
after working as a fitter and welder in Penrose.

A compensation appeal Mr. Lehmann made to ACC was accepted in
early 2003, but he died days after being offered weekly
compensation of NZD67.72 in November 2003.

In August 2004, the Court awarded Mr. Lehmann's estate nearly
NZD100,000 compensation. The award was later appealed by ACC on
the grounds of establishing the legality of lump sum payouts.

The High Court ruled in favor of ACC's appeal, leaving Mr.
Lehmann's wife and son John in limbo as ACC investigated if the
payout should be returned.

In May 2006, the Council of Trade Unions launched a campaign for
fair compensation for victims of workplace asbestos exposure.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


XETHANOL CORP: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announced that on Oct. 23, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Xethanol Corp. (XNL).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from Jan. 31, 2006 through Aug. 8, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Dec. 26,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, E-mail to: wfederman@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


                            *********


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
liabilities.

                            *********


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  * * *