/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050722.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 22, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 144 Headlines ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: FTC Charges 7 Firms For Explicit Spam Mail ARKANSAS: Defendants Want "Pay Per Click" Suit in Federal Court BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits CAL POLY: Program Gets Windfall From Methionine Antitrust Deal CANADA: Smiths Falls Mayor Supports Lawsuit to Stop RRC Closure CANADA: Residents Mull Property Damage Suit V. Red Hill Valley CARBON FIBER: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set August 11, 2005 CARDIZEM CD: Pennsylvania To Participate in Antitrust Settlement CARDIZEM CD: UT Residents To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share CARDIZEM CD: WA Residents To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: Visa, Amex Cuts Ties For Security Breach CONAGRA FOODS: Retiree Lodges Suit Over Earnings Manipulation DAN NELSON: SD AG To Help Customers of Closed Car Dealership ELECTRICAL CARBON: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 10, 2005 ENRON CORPORATION: WA To Participate in $1.52B Multistate Pact ESPEED INC.: Individual Investors Achieve Lead Plaintiff Status FLORIDA: AG Crist Files Suit V. Three Firms For Medicaid Fraud HSBC USA: Call Center Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in NY KANSAS: Vietnamese Group Sues Wichita Diocese Over Money Shift LOUISIANA: French Quarter Residents File Parking Meter Suit MICHELIN: Refund Offer Not Likely To Please US Grand Prix Fans MICHIGAN: Grosse Point Park Losses Lawsuit Over Flood Insurance OHIO: OHCA Launches Suit Over Biennial Budget Bill's Provisions OHIO: Presiding Judge OKs $120M Fund For Priest Abuse Victims PEPSI BOTTLING: Receives $24M Share in Corn Syrup Antitrust Pact PIZZA HUT: CA Court Strikes Certain Class Members From FLSA Suit PRB CONTRACTING: VT AG Initiates Home Improvement Fraud Lawsuit SOUTH DAKOTA: AG To Give Share in Taxol Settlement To Charities TXU ELECTRIC: Rusk City Accepts Share Ratepayer Suit Settlement TOYOBO COMPANY: Ohio To Receive Share in Zylon Vest Settlement UNITED STATES: FDA Issues Safety Alert on Recalled Smoked Salmon WASHINGTON: Utah Women Sue DOC Over Sex Offender's Supervision Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dockyard Worker Dies from Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Party Urges Gov't to Rush Asbestos Removal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conference Turns Focus on Staff Education ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby School Case Adjourned Until September ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Probes Dumping Incident at AU Toll Road ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Govt Expands Coverage in Benefits Scheme ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Corp.'s Lone Pending Suit Inactive ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Conducts Testing on Demolition Methods ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Asbestos Group Lobbying Delayed Laws ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Junking of Suit V. John Crane ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New U.S. Lawsuits Loom Before James Hardie ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK School Exposure Causes Teacher's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group Finds Fault in Cape's Funding Scheme ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Court Affirms Junking of 33 Suits V. CCR ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trains with Asbestos Insulation Pose Risks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Method to Detoxify Asbestos Removes Risks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Vows to Campaign Against Mesothelioma ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't Report Could Signal a Surge of Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RI Court Denies GE's Motion to Dismiss Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. 2Q05 Profit Rises by 53% ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SB 852 Challengers to Hold Forum Next Week ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Munich Re Boosts US Unit Reserves by $1.6B ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt Urges Industry for Voluntary Ban ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Premier Drops Local Insulation Concerns ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek to Propose USG's Ch. 11 Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prosecutors Probe 3 Law Firms Over Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Covered by Insurance Rises 53.7% ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't Fails to Warn Against Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Legislation to Reach Senate Floor on Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Reveals Asbestos in 90 Kansai Schools ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Agency Probes Dumping at Housing Site ASBESTOS ALERT: Former Employee Files Lawsuit V. EMI Group PLC ASBESTOS ALERT: DEP Halts NY Bldg Project for Disposal Breaches ASBESTOS ALERT: GA Court Favors Prison Officers in Inmate's Suit ASBESTOS ALERT: NY Court Affirms Ruling V. Appalachian Insurance ASBESTOS ALERT: DE Court Remands Claimant's Petition V. 2 Firms ASBESTOS ALERT: Hexion's Bakelite Incurs Liability for Cleanups New Securities Fraud Cases AVAYA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files ERISA Class Action Suit in NJ MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NJ MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Suit in NJ MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in NJ RAMP CORPORATION: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in NY ********* ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: FTC Charges 7 Firms For Explicit Spam Mail ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a crackdown on operations that illegally expose unwitting consumers to graphic sexual content, the Federal Trade Commission charged seven companies with violating federal laws requiring warning labels on e-mail that contains sexually- explicit content. Federal suits filed against three operations seek civil penalties and a permanent bar on the illegal marketing. Settlements with four other operations have imposed $1.159 million in civil penalties. The settlements bar the illegal marketing practices in the future and require that the defendants monitor their affiliates to ensure they are not violating the law. "This x-rated e-mail is electronic flashing," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. "It exposes kids and other unwary consumers to graphic sexual content, and it is unwanted, offensive, and illegal." "The Adult Labeling Rule was designed to protect consumers who don't want to be exposed to random assaults of sexual material and others, like kids, for whom it is inappropriate. It's the law, and we intend to enforce it," Parnes said. The FTC's Adult Labeling Rule and the CAN-SPAM Act require commercial e-mailers of sexually-explicit material to use the phrase "SEXUALLY EXPLICIT: " in the subject line of the e-mail message and to ensure that the initially viewable area of the message does not contain graphic sexual images. The Rule and the Act also require that unsolicited commercial e-mail contain an opportunity for consumers to opt out of receiving future e-mail and provide a postal address, among other things. The FTC charged that the companies sent sexually-explicit e-mail messages that: (1) violated the Adult Labeling Rule requirements; (2) violated the requirement to provide a clear and conspicuous opt-out mechanism; and (3) violated the requirement to provide a postal address. While the defendants did not send e-mail directly to consumers, they operated "affiliate marketing" programs in which they paid others to send spam on their behalf. Under the CAN-SPAM Act, the defendants are liable for the illegal spam sent by their affiliates because the defendants "initiated" the e-mail by paying others to send it on their behalf. The settlements bar future violations of the CAN-SPAM Act and the Adult Labeling Rule. They also require that the defendants closely monitor the practices of their affiliate marketers to insure that they are not violating the law. The participants are: (i) BangBros.com Inc., based in Florida, will pay $650,000 in civil penalties; (ii) MD Media, a Michigan corporation, will pay $238,743; (iii) APC Entertainment, Inc., a Florida corporation, will pay $220,000; and (iv) Pure Marketing Solutions, LLC, a Florida company, and Internet Matrix Technology, a corporation based in Louisiana, will together pay $50,000. The settlements contain record-keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor the defendants' compliance with the orders. In addition to the settlements, at the request of the FTC, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed suit in U.S. District Courts citing three other operations for violations of the CAN- SPAM Act and the Adult Labeling Rule: (a) TJ Web Productions, LLC, a Nevada company; (b) Cyberheat, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; and (c) Impulse Media, a Washington corporation. Microsoft Corporation provided valuable technical assistance in the investigation of these cases. The Commission votes to file the complaints in the Cyberheat, Impulse Media and TJ Web Productions cases were 5-0. Votes in the other matters were 4-0. The proposed stipulated final judgments and orders will be filed by the DOJ at the request of the FTC. They are subject to court approval. Copies of the complaints and consents are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2181 or Jonathan M. Kraden of the Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3257 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/alrsweep.htm. ARKANSAS: Defendants Want "Pay Per Click" Suit in Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Web search companies America Online, Google, Yahoo and others filed a petition with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis, relating to the lawsuit alleging they overcharged for Internet "pay per click" advertising, arguing that the suit belongs in federal court, not the Arkansas court system, The Associated Press reports. The companies, which filed their petition with 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis is seeking permission to appeal a court ruling by U.S. District Judge Harry Barnes, who recently ruled that the suit properly belongs in Miller County Circuit Court, where it was filed on February 4 by Lane's Gifts and Collectibles of Texarkana. The plaintiffs have asked that the complaint be designated as a class action suit, and has since bounced up and down the court system stem from disagreements over where the suit should be heard in light of a new federal law. The suit was filed in state court right before approval by Congress of a new law that designated federal courts as the primary location for class action lawsuits. Judge Barnes ruled that meant that the new law did not apply to the case. Under the new law, which Congress approved on February 18, class action suits seeking $5 million or more would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if less than one- third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, and more than $5 million is at stake, the case would go to federal court. However, the petition by the defendants argues that the date Judge Barnes should have considered in deciding where the case should be heard was March 30, which was the day a petition was filed in federal court to remove the case from the state court. In addition, the defendants' petition stated, "This appeal presents the first opportunity for this circuit to decide the proper interpretation of the act's effective-date provision. Deciding the issue now will remove uncertainty, which was the reason Congress altered long-standing law to permit an appeal like this one, and ensure that these suits are heard in federal court where they belong." The petition also argued, "it makes sense to construe 'commenced' to include the date an action begins in federal court with the filing of a removal notice." As previously reported in the July 14, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the suit claims that the Internet companies charged Lane's for advertising traffic not generated by bona fide customers. It specifically alleges that the defendant companies worked with one another in a conspiracy to create an online environment that harms advertisers. The suit also states that the companies "have grown the Internet PPC (pay per click) advertising market while failing to disclose that they have routinely and systematically overcharged and-or over collected for PPC advertising revenue from their customers." In the online advertising world, businesses pay Internet providers a fee based on the number of times their ads are "clicked." The click takes would-be customers to another page for more information. Lane's alleges that these ads are often clicked only to generate a bigger bill for advertisers, not by someone truly seeking more information. Other defendants in the suit are, Yahoo! Inc., Overture Services Inc., Time Warner Inc., America Online Inc., Netscape Communications Corp., Ask Jeeves Inc., Buena Vista Internet Group doing business as Go.Com, Google Inc., Lycos Inc., Looksmart Ltd. and Findwhat.com Inc. BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against Biolase Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaints purport to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October 29, 2003 and July 16, 2004. The complaints allege that the Company and its officers violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information about the demand for our products and the fact that the Company would not achieve the alleged forecasted growth. The claimed misrepresentations include certain statements in the Company's press releases and the registration statement the Company filed in connection with our public offering of stock in March 2004. The suit is styled "Van Dam Holdings Ltd. v. Biolase Technology, Inc., et al, case no 8:04-cv-947," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter. Lead plaintiffs Alan Harvey and Elizabeth Paul are represented by Dale Joseph MacDiarmid, Lionel Z Glancy, Peter Arthur Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: 310-201-9150. CAL POLY: Program Gets Windfall From Methionine Antitrust Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Cal Poly State University's Animal Science program received $500,000 for its animal nutrition research and instruction programs as the result of a settlement of an industry-wide class action suit and could possibly receive more funding later this year. Cal Poly could receive additional funds from the settlement fund before the end of 2005, depending on final resolution of the case, said Animal Science Department Head Andy Thulin. Cal Poly was not a plaintiff in the original suit resulting in the settlement, but was chosen to receive the funding because of its strong animal nutrition program. "This money will significantly enhance the department's ability to do research and educate students about cutting-edge technologies that will ultimately benefit California," Mr. Thulin said. To receive the settlement funding, Cal Poly submitted a proposal after being contacted along with other universities by the law firms overseeing the settlement. Mr. Thulin's proposal outlined the Cal Poly Animal Science program, its offerings, and what the university would do with the settlement money if received. The strength of the university's program and its partnership with a strong advisory board of industry representatives aided Cal Poly in receiving the settlement funding, Mr. Thulin said. "Cal Poly's Animal Science Department is a national leader in undergraduate training in animal nutrition and reproductive biology. We're expanding and improving the biotechnology program and we're particularly strong in beef, equine, poultry, and swine studies," Thulin said. One project already lined up for the department is research into reducing phosphates, nitrates and other components of animal waste in commercial swine operations, Mr. Thulin said. Cal Poly is already involved in several avian nutrition and immunology research projects through its Foster Farms professorship and poultry science program, he noted. The unanticipated $500,000 comes at a critical time; Cal Poly's Animal Science Department is about to launch into a $12 million construction project to build four new facilities. They include a new animal nutrition center, beef center and feedlot, and a meat processing center, with associated classrooms, labs and animal areas. The facilities are being relocated and rebuilt to make way for a new student housing project set to break ground this fall. Cal Poly has secured $8 million in state funding for the animal science construction projects, and the department is on a drive to raise the remaining $4 million over the next several months. The bulk of the $500,000 settlement, and any future monies received from the settlement, will go toward building the new campus animal nutrition center, Mr. Thulin said. Anyone interested in contributing to the department's fund-raising drive can contact Mr. Thulin or development officer Andy Carlin at the department office at (805) 756-2419. The university received the $500,000 check June 29 from a class action settlement fund involving a suit by purchasers of animal feeds against the makers of a synthetic animal feed ingredient called methionine. The ingredient is an amino acid found naturally in soybeans that is a key component of swine and poultry feed. The original lawsuits, filed in California, accused several international synthetic methionine manufacturers of global price-fixing. The court-approved settlement provided that at least $500,000 in payments agreed to by the methionine makers is used to further animal nutrition research and education. Attorneys for the plaintiffs reviewed several other animal nutrition programs and learned details of Cal Poly's program. Attorney Dario de Ghetaldi of Corey, Luziach, Pliska, De Ghetaldi & Nastari and Michele C. Jackson of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein proposed Cal Poly to the court as the recipient of the $500,000. The court agreed. Ms. Jackson and Mr. de Ghetaldi said in a joint statement that they are sure Cal Poly will put the funds to good use and their law firms are gratified by being able to assist Cal Poly's Animal Science program. CANADA: Smiths Falls Mayor Supports Lawsuit to Stop RRC Closure --------------------------------------------------------------- The mayor of Smiths Falls, Dennis Staples is supporting a legal action by Toronto attorney James Gray that seeks to keep the Rideau Regional Center from closing its doors, The Brockville Recorder & Times reports. As previously reported in the July 21, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Gray issued a claim as a guardian for his sister Ann Gray and filed a class action lawsuit against the Province of Ontario, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, Community and Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello and "any other minister or Crown officer" involved in the impending closure of the Rideau Regional Center (RRC) located just outside of Smiths Falls. It was filed on behalf of the families of Rideau center residents. Mr. Gray's lawyer is to be in Superior Court in Perth on August 26, where she will seek an injunction to keep the center open while the case proceeds. Following a recent town council meeting Mayor Staples told The Brockville Recorder & Times reports, "I'm hoping it will work. I'm hoping that a sober second look will be taken in terms of the policy direction." Mr. Staples is a former finance director and administrator at the facility, which is home to approximately 430 residents, many of whom have severe developmental disabilities. He also told The Brockville Recorder & Times, "I know the type of care that is provided." The mayor called the closure, which was announced last September by Community and Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello, an "injustice" to residents and their families. He told The Brockville Recorder & Times, "Some of the individuals there have high needs, some of them can't see, can't talk, can't walk, can't feed themselves. The parents are concerned about what's going to become of them." In addition, Mayor Staples also told The Brockville Recorder & Times that Ms. Pupatello and her ministry have done nothing to allay the concerns of families since announcing the closure, which is to be completed by March 2009. In fact, according to him, they've broken promises by saying, "She said there was going to be public consultation � well, that hasn't taken place yet. They were supposed to do it this past winter." The mayor further stated that the government's assurances that displaced residents would find a support system in the community haven't been backed up with evidence the high level of care required by residents actually exists outside the center. Commenting on that situation, he told The Brockville Recorder & Times, "If that's the case, I wish the ministry would come out and put everybody's mind at ease," adding, "I'm not convinced (the supports) are or will be (there)." CANADA: Residents Mull Property Damage Suit V. Red Hill Valley -------------------------------------------------------------- Red Hill Valley, Canada faces a potential $60 million lawsuit from its residents, alleging the city failed to properly protect homeowners who live along the proposed Red Hill Creek Expressway, Mountain News reports. The Red Hill Valley Neighbourhood Association (RHVNA) is preparing to file the suit. The city has identified 101 households that will be affected by expressway. The association believes that up to 500 more households will also be affected by the traffic, noise and air pollution, and falling property values. Residents in the Red Hill Neighbourhood are fed up with city officials offer of constructing a barrier, installing triple glaze windows and an air conditioner to reduce noise and air pollution, Richard Reble, spokesperson for the association, told Mountain News. "Many of the residents believe we should have taken the action sooner," said Mr. Reble. Eric Gillespie, who is representing RHVNA, told Mountain News the decision to follow through on their legal threat will be determined by city officials' response to their offer to further review health studies conducted on residents living near highways in other jurisdictions. He said the news conference, held at city hall and including a representative from the Sierra Club of America, was to provide city officials time to "reconsider their position." "There is no doubt, should we be unable to reach a resolution, legal action will follow," Mr. Gillespie said, who refused to characterize his clients' announcement as a threat to the city. "The compensation package put in front of residents is not sufficient and the law appears to support that position. These are the options that RHVNA have available to it. And it will depend a large measure on the city which of the options ultimately RHVNA pursues," Mr. Gillespie told Mountain News. However, Mr. Gillespie has delayed the formal submission of legal documents against the city because he is waiting for a judgement from the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of "Pearson vs Inco," involving whether or not Port Colborne residents can sue the large nickel company either individually or in a class action suit. A decision isn't expected until later in the fall. Once the decision is revealed, Mr. Gillespie told Mountain News he will launch the lawsuit against the city. The $60 million figure is based upon compensation claims of between $10,000 to $250,000 on 500 homes. Mr. Gillespie said he would prefer to seek legal action by way of a class action suit. Residents have provided the city with some information about health effects, but "we have not heard from the city in the last month," Mr. Gillespie told Mountain News. "We needed to kickstart the discussion. This (news conference) may do it." Mr. Gillespie said there are already residents suffering illnesses due to the construction of the project. There is also an undetermined number of homeowners who are asking the city to purchase their properties and relocate them, Mr. Gillespie told Mountain News. The cost, the association believes, should be paid by the municipality since the expressway will benefit all of the city. "There is no hard number (of the number of people who want to move). But there are significant numbers," said Mr. Gillespie. "Many people do enjoy living in east Hamilton. And giving proper mitigation they could stay. There are other people that truly believe it is not possible for them to live there." CARBON FIBER: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set August 11, 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement by defendants BP Amoco Polymers, Inc. and Hercules, Inc. in the matter: In re Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc., et al. v. Newport Adhesives Composites, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-99-07796-FMC (RNBx), on behalf of all persons (excluding government entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates) who purchased carbon fiber in the United States directly from the defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time during the period from January 1, 1993 through January 31, 1999. The hearing will be held on August 11, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Florence-Marie Cooper, at the Edmond R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple St., Los Angeles, CA. For more details, contact Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation, c/o Heffler Radetich & Saitta, LLP, P.O. box 410, Philadelphia, PA, 19105-0410, E-mail: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.comOR Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: (800) 449-4900. CARDIZEM CD: Pennsylvania To Participate in Antitrust Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nearly $1.4 million will be released this week to 4,700 Pennsylvania residents who were prescribed the heart drug Cardizem CD between 1998 and 2004. Each consumer will receive an average refund of $317, state Attorney General Tom Corbett today announced in a statement. The funds represent a portion of a $24 million settlement between 50 state Attorneys General and New Jersey-based Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Andrx Corporation, located in Kansas City, Missouri. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Cardizem CD, and Andrx, a generic drug company, were accused of engaging in a price-fixing scheme that violated state and federal antitrust laws. Mr. Corbett said the 2003 settlement resolves claims that beginning in July 1998 Hoechst, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, acquired by Aventis in 2000, along with Andrx illegally agreed that Andrx would stay out of the market and not produce a less expensive generic version of Cardizem CD. In return, Aventis agreed to pay Andrx nearly $90 million. States' investigators claimed that the delay in the availability of the generic form of Cardizem CD meant that patients without prescription drug coverage, medical insurance companies and the government had to pay a much higher price for the brand name version of the drug for at least an extra year. "This alleged price-fixing scheme forced thousands of Pennsylvanians to pay more for a life saving heart drug because the parties consciously and illegally manipulated the system," Mr. Corbett said. "Today, we begin to return to consumers what should never have been taken in the first place." He said the distribution to third party purchasers of the drug will begin later this year. In addition, approximately $4.5 million will be distributed among the states to reimburse certain government purchasers, including Medicaid. Under the terms of the 2003 settlement, Aventis and Andrx will pay the states $24 million in restitution to 76,000 consumers nationwide including 4,700 from the Commonwealth. The checks will be released to consumers this week by the claims administrator. This settlement is in addition to a $110 million agreement reached earlier between the companies and drug wholesalers involving similar alleged antitrust violations. The Commonwealth's case was negotiated by Chief Deputy Attorney General James A. Donahue III and Deputy Attorney General Benjamin Cox of Corbett's Antitrust Section in Harrisburg. For more details, contact the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General by Mail: 16th Floor Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120 by Phone: 717-787-5211 by Fax: 717-787-8242 or visit the Website: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/contact/Index.cfm. CARDIZEM CD: UT Residents To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share --------------------------------------------------------------- Hundreds of Utah heart patients will be getting a healthy refund soon for being overcharged for the heart medication Cardizem CD, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff announced in a statement. 405 Utahns will receive a total of $126,907 from a multi-state antitrust settlement with two pharmaceutical companies. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Andrx Corporation agreed to pay $80 million for delaying the sales of generic versions of Cardizem CD. The lawsuit alleged that in July 1998, Hoechst, a pharmaceutical company acquired by Aventis in 2000, paid Andrx to withhold marketing of the generic version of the heart medication. "Those delays meant higher prices for consumers and higher taxes for everyone else because government agencies also had to pay the inflated price," says Mr. Shurtleff. "It's about time these drug companies gave the money back." Utahns who purchased Cardizem CD between 1998 and 2002 will receive an average refund of $313. The checks will begin to be mailed from the court-appointed administrator this week. Utah will also receive more than $80,600 to recover damages incurred by the state, plus attorneys fees and costs incurred in the litigation. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Ockey represented Utah in the settlement. For more details, contact Paul Murphy by Phone: (801)538-1892 or visit the Attorney General's Website: http://www.attorneygeneral.utah.gov/settlements.html. CARDIZEM CD: WA Residents To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Washington residents who paid high prices for a popular heart medication will share nearly $403,000 in refunds from an antitrust case settlement, Attorney General Rob McKenna announced in a statement. The state began mailing checks to 1,127 consumers on July 18,2005. The payments are the result of a nationwide settlement with two drug companies that made a pact to delay the availability of a generic equivalent of Cardizem CD. Cardizem CD is used to treat chest pain, high blood pressure and heart disease. "Thousands of patients whose lives depended on Cardizem CD were manipulated into paying more than they should for the medicine," Mr. McKenna said. "This was not a case of a company trying to earn a reasonable profit for a new product. It was a deliberate and illegal maneuver by two drug manufacturers who sought to enrich themselves at the expense of vulnerable consumers." Washington was among 27 states and several private plaintiff groups that sued Aventis and Andrx. The states alleged that Aventis, maker of Cardizem CD, paid Andrx nearly $90 million to keep a cheaper generic form of the drug off the market. As a result, consumers, medical insurance companies and the government had to purchase the higher-priced, brand-name version of the drug for a year. The defendants settled in 2002 but the case remained in limbo while a third-party appealed. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the final appeal and a trial judge approved the reimbursements. Aventis and Andrx will pay a total of $80 million. The settlement will benefit more than 76,000 consumers throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico who bought Cardizem CD between January 1998 and January 2003. Those consumers, who were represented by the states, will share a total of $24 million. In addition, $4.5 million will be distributed among the states to reimburse certain government purchasers, including Medicaid. Washington agencies, including the Washington State Procurement Office, Department of Social and Health Services, Washington Health Care Authority, University of Washington Medical Center and Harborview Medical Center, will receive nearly $126,500. The states will also receive $2.5 million as reimbursement for legal fees and other costs connected with the lawsuit; Washington's share is $150,000. The remaining $49 million will be paid to consumers represented in private class actions. The deadline to submit reimbursement claims was November 2003. Fewer Washington residents submitted claims than initially predicted, but individual payments exceeded earlier estimates. Refund amounts will vary depending on consumer purchases. Further details are available on the settlement administration's Website: http://www.cardizemsettlement.com. For more information, contact Kristin Alexander, Public Information Officer, by Phone: (206) 464-6432 or Brady Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, by Phone: (206) 389-2848 or visit the Website: http://www.atg.wa.gov/ CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: Visa, Amex Cuts Ties For Security Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Credit card giants Visa USA, Inc. and American Express Co. are severing ties with payment-processing company CardSystems Solutions, Inc., after a breach in the Company's computer network left 40 million credit and debit card accounts vulnerable to hackers, the Associated Press reports. In June 2005, hackers installed a rogue computer program that extracted data, potentially compromising as many as 22 million Visa-branded cards and 14 million MasterCard-branded cards, as well as others. According to news reports, records on about 200,000 credit cards may have been stolen, but not birth dates or Social Security numbers. On June 17,2005, MasterCard International also issued a statement notifying its member financial institutions of a breach of payment card data, which potentially exposed more than 40 million cards of all brands to fraud, of which approximately 13.9 million are MasterCard-branded cards. The Company's team of security experts identified that the breach occurred at the Tucson-based Company. The security breach occurred after CardSystems the Company inappropriately held onto card data for "research purposes" rather than deleting it, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 5,2005) states. CardSystems Solutions Inc. "has not corrected, and cannot at this point correct, the failure to provide proper data security for Visa accounts," Rosetta Jones, a spokeswoman for Foster City, Calif.-based Visa, told AP. She said banks that issue Visa cards would have until Oct. 31 to replace CardSystems with one of the hundreds of other payment-processing companies in the United States. American Express also notified CardSystems it would sever their relationship as of October, spokeswoman Judy Tenzer told AP. CardSystems was a small part of American Express' network, handling less than 0.5 percent of its transactions, she said. Atlanta-based CardSystems released a statement saying it was "disappointed and very surprised," and hoped Visa would reconsider. The company did not address American Express' decision, AP reports. CardSystems told the FBI it learned of a potential breach of its computer network on May 22, and the break-in was publicly disclosed last month. However, it appears the breach happened much earlier. Visa's Jones told AP Australian banks had notified the credit card company about fraud in January that at the time seemed isolated. But later investigation revealed that the security hole at CardSystems was responsible, she said. Visa said that while CardSystems has taken some remediating actions since the breach was disclosed, those could not overcome the fact that it was inappropriately holding on to account information - purportedly for "research purposes" - when the breach occurred, in violation of Visa's security rules. MasterCard International Inc. is taking a different tack with CardSystems. The credit card company expects CardSystems to develop a plan for improving its security by Aug. 31, "and as of today, we are not aware of any deficiencies in its systems that are incapable of being remediated," spokeswoman Sharon Gamsin told AP. "However, if CardSystems cannot demonstrate that they are in compliance by that date, their ability to provide services to MasterCard members will be at risk," she said. A spokeswoman for Discover Financial Services Inc., which also has a relationship with CardSystems, declined to comment, AP reports. CONAGRA FOODS: Retiree Lodges Suit Over Earnings Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------- A third class action lawsuit this one from a retiree of ConAgra Foods Inc., was filed in U.S. District Court in Nebraska, accusing top executives of manipulating the Omaha-based company's earnings, The Associated Press reports. Filed by Michael Rantana on behalf of ConAgra employees who bought the company's stock as part of their 401(k) plans after September 18, 2003, the suit, which asks for unspecified damages, accuses Bruce Rohde, ConAgra president, chief executive and chairman, as well as other executives, of hiding information about the company's finances from the public. According to the lawsuit, executives' action caused the retirees to lose money when the value of the company's stock later fell. ConAgra spokesman Chris Kircher told The Associated Press that he had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment specifically. "But it appears to be driven by the same logic" as the other two lawsuits, he said. "Class action attorneys jumping on the same bandwagon. We believe it has no merit, and we will fight." DAN NELSON: SD AG To Help Customers of Closed Car Dealership ------------------------------------------------------------ South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long and Revenue and Regulation Secretary Gary Viken want to remind consumers that help is available for Dan Nelson customers. The recent closing of the Dan Nelson Automotive dealerships in Sioux Falls and Rapid City has caused some concern among buyers. "My Consumer Protection Division assists dozens of consumers with a variety of issues," said Mr. Long, "and we stand ready to assist consumers with concerns about Dan Nelson Automotive. Consumer Investigators mediated complaints prior to the closure and will continue to do so." "The Motor Vehicle Division will assist consumers with title issues; however, there may be situations where it will be necessary for consumers to seek legal counsel, depending upon the circumstance," said Motor Vehicle Division Director Deb Hillmer. Mr. Long said that his office and the Department of Revenue are also working with MetaBank to resolve issues as they arise in connection with the closure of the Dan Nelson Automotive dealerships. Consumers who have questions or complaints can contact the Consumer Protection Division by Phone: 1-800-300-1986 or the Motor Vehicle Division by Phone: 605-773-3541 or visit the Website: http://www.state.sd.us/attorney. ELECTRICAL CARBON: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 10, 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing in the proposed $24.2 million settlement for the matter: In re Electrical Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1514, Master Civil No. 03-2182 (JBS), on behalf of all persons who purchased Electrical Carbon Products in the United States from a facility located in the United States, directly from the defendants during the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1999. The hearing will be held on November 10, 2005, at 10:00 p.m., at the Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse, Fourth and Cooper Streets, Camden, NJ, 08101. For more details, contact Steven A. Asher of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC, 1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215-545-7200 or 877-805-7200, Fax: 215 545 6535, E-mail: asher@wka-law.com OR Melissa H. Maxman, Esq. of Duanne Morris LLP, 101 W. Broadway, Ste 900, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: (619) 744-2200, Fax: (619) 744-2201 OR visit http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/ecp/. ENRON CORPORATION: WA To Participate in $1.52B Multistate Pact -------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna announced a $1.52 billion multistate settlement with Enron to resolve some of the claims of market manipulation and price gouging stemming from the energy shortage of 2000-2001, in a statement dated July 15,2005. The states of Washington, California and Oregon, as well as some California utilities and other organizations, are parties to the settlement. The agreement must be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Enron bankruptcy court. "Enron used malicious tactics to illegally manipulate the energy market and get rich at the expense of Washington utility companies and residents," Mr. McKenna said. "This settlement is a bittersweet victory because although the penalties are significant, litigation almost always brings incomplete recovery and, as a result of Enron's bankruptcy, we'll likely see only pennies on the dollar." Enron traders engaged in numerous incidents of unlawful conduct in Washington State, Mr. McKenna said. During the 2000-2001 energy crisis, the company overcharged Washington utilities by millions of dollars for wholesale electricity, resulting in utility rate increases passed along to consumers. The proposed settlement resolves certain claims now pending before FERC and in the Enron bankruptcy. It does not resolve all claims rising from Enron's behavior in the energy crisis - such as litigation involving a contract termination claim involving Enron and the Snohomish Public Utility District - nor does it prevent the state from pursuing criminal charges against Enron. Under this settlement, Washington and Oregon each receive more than $22 million in unsecured bankruptcy claims. However, the amount ultimately paid by Enron under the settlement will not be known until the bankruptcy court decides on a distribution amount and schedule, which could take a year or more. Attorneys anticipate the final amount actually received by Washington will be just a few million dollars. Prior to declaring bankruptcy, Enron was reportedly the largest wholesale power marketer in North America by sales volume, and made nearly $2 billion in profits during from its electricity trading operations in the Western states during 2000 and 2001. The attorneys allege that Enron traders manipulated the energy market with schemes dubbed with such colorful names as "Death Star," "Fat Boy," "Get Shorty," "Ricochet," and "Load Shift." The "Fat Boy" scam, for example, involved "overscheduling" power transmission to a company subsidiary that didn't really need all of it. Then Enron would sell the "excess" power to the state at a premium. With "Ricochet," Enron bought power cheaply from California, sold it to an intermediary in another state, then sold it back to California at an inflated price. In addition, the company engaged in "wash trades" to manipulate index prices and falsely create the appearance of higher volume trading, thereby boosting their credit and stock status. The Washington State Attorney General's Office previously settled with three other companies for their roles in the 2000- 2001 energy crisis. El Paso Corp. paid Washington $23 million. Williams Companies, Inc. and the Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Company settled for $15 million. Duke Energy Company paid $3.25 million. For more information, contact Kristin Alexander, Public Information Officer, Attorney General's Office, by Phone: (206) 464-6432 or visit the Website: http://www.atg.wa.gov/. ESPEED INC.: Individual Investors Achieve Lead Plaintiff Status --------------------------------------------------------------- Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin took the unusual step of selecting a small group of individual investors, rather than an institutional investor, as presumptive lead plaintiff in a securities class action suit against the financial software company, eSpeed, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESPD), The New York Law Journal reports. Both the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund and a group of five investors led by Shabbir Adib sought to be named lead plaintiff in a suit against the New York-based firm. In the case, In Re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, 05 Civ. 2091, the judge acknowledged that the standards established in the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act were designed to favor pension funds and other institutional investors in selecting lead plaintiffs. Additionally, Judge Scheindlin wrote in her ruling, "Appointing a group of unrelated investors lead plaintiff could lead to fragmentation and the problem of determining whose voice reigns when the group cannot agree. An institutional investor with substantial losses functioning as lead plaintiff is less likely to cause a 'flurry of otherwise pointless activity' in the form of disputes within the lead plaintiff group." However, Judge Scheindlin noted that, while courts in the Southern District were divided as to whether a group of unrelated investors, could serve as lead plaintiff, the majority view was that such a group can serve in that role in the appropriate circumstances. To that end, she wrote, "Where aggregation would not displace an institutional investor as presumptive lead plaintiff based on the amount of losses sustained, a small group of unrelated investors may serve as lead plaintiff." Judge Scheindlin wrote that the contest for presumptive lead plaintiff hinged on whether the Adib group had larger losses than the pension fund. Two of the four factors used in determining which plaintiff had the greatest financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, which include net number of shares purchased during the class period and the total net funds expended, favored the Adib group, Judge Scheindlin wrote. She further wrote that a third factor, the number of gross shares purchased during the class period, favored the pension fund, while the fourth factor required a measurement of the parties' financial losses. The pension fund applied the First-In, First-Out accounting method while the Adib group applied the Last-In, Last-Out method to make this calculation. The methods, often called by their acronyms, FIFO and LIFO, are normally used in the accounting world to calculate the value of inventory. Courts though have used both methods in determining loss valuation. The judge stated, "The main advantage of LIFO is that, unlike FIFO, it takes into account gains that might have accrued to plaintiffs during the class period due to the inflation of a stock price." The plaintiffs had accused eSpeed of inflating its stock price by hiding negative information about the company's prospects. But, Judge Scheindlin held, "FIFO, as applied by the Pension Fund ignores sales occurring during the class period and hence may exaggerate losses." If plaintiffs had sold some eSpeed stock during the class period when this alleged deception took place, then they would have profited from the inflated price. Referring to LIFO Judge Scheindlin wrote, "Because this method contemplates the offsetting gains the parties collected during the class period, it is a better measurement of the true damages sustained by the plaintiffs." As it turned out, the pension fund had sold some of its eSpeed shares during the class period at a significantly higher price than the price after eSpeed's disclosure of its true financial condition. "Thus the Pension Fund's losses due to eSpeed's alleged fraud were actually somewhat cushioned by the sales made when eSpeed's stock price was high, sales that are not taken into account by the Pension Fund's application of FIFO," Judge Scheindlin held. She continued, "By contrast the Adib Group's utilization of LIFO reflects offsetting 'gains' that were attained through the sale of stock during the class period." On that basis, the judge calculated that Adib group lost either $166,743 or $196,795, while the pension fund lost $121,264 and since the group otherwise met the requirements of federal rules for a lead plaintiff, she also granted it the status of presumptive lead plaintiff. The suit is styled, In Re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, 05 Civ. 2091, which is pending the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, before the Honorable Shira Scheindlin. Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates represented the Adib group. Samuel Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robin acted as plaintiffs' counsel. Lionel Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg in Los Angeles acted as plaintiffs' counsel. Eric Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer acted as plaintiffs' counsel. Dennis Orr and Joseph De Simone of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw's New York office represented eSpeed. FLORIDA: AG Crist Files Suit V. Three Firms For Medicaid Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist filed suit against three pharmaceutical manufacturers for defrauding Florida's Medicaid program in a scheme that cost Florida taxpayers $25 million. The lawsuit alleges that the companies wrongfully inflated prices in a way that let pharmacies receive excessive reimbursement for filling prescriptions for Medicaid patients who bought generic drugs for depression, schizophrenia, seizures, angina and other serious illnesses. An investigation by the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit revealed that the three companies - Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - and various parent and subsidiary companies enabled Medicaid pharmacies to obtain reimbursements that far exceeded the actual cost of the drugs. The manufacturers then used this potential windfall as a marketing tool, telling pharmacies they could make more money in Medicaid reimbursements if they sold the companies' products rather than those of their competitors. The fraudulent practices began as early as 1994 and allegedly resulted in hundreds of thousands of false claims. The lawsuit was prompted by a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by a small Key West pharmacy. "These companies ripped off Florida's Medicaid program and cheated the public," Mr. Crist said. "They profited by helping pharmacies line their pockets with Medicaid money that was supposed to help needy Floridians obtain medicine and health care." Like most Medicaid programs around the country, the Florida program reimburses pharmacies, physicians and other medical providers for the drugs they dispense to Medicaid patients. The reimbursements are based on the drugs' "average wholesale prices," which the manufacturers are required to accurately report. If manufacturers report inflated prices to the Medicaid program, the bogus amounts can cause the taxpayer-supported program to overpay for medications. The result of this scheme is that the manufacturers sell more of their products, pharmacies receive excessive reimbursement and the taxpayers pay more than they should, thereby depleting limited Medicaid resources. The lawsuit marks the third case of its kind Mr. Crist has brought against drug manufacturers for defrauding Medicaid and Florida taxpayers. Mr. Crist brought similar allegations against three pharmaceutical manufacturers in July 2003, and filed a second lawsuit against an additional three companies in April 2005. Today's lawsuit alleges violations of the Florida False Claims Act and common law fraud. The False Claims Act authorizes triple damages, increasing the state's potential recovery to $75 million. For more details, contact the Attorney General by Mail: The Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 by Phone: 850-414-3300 or 1-866-966-7226 or view the civil complaint at this Website: http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY- 6EFRYC/$file/AWP_Complaint.pdf. HSBC USA: Call Center Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Global banking firm HSBC USA, Inc. (NYSE: HBC) violated federal and state labor laws, according to a lawsuit filed recently in New York federal court. Two former telephone call center workers in HSBC facilities in the Buffalo, N.Y. area -- James Stefaniak and Keith Panaccione - - allege that neither they nor their coworkers received overtime pay as required by federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York state laws. Attorneys from Outten & Golden LLP and Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP represent the call center workers and will seek certification of the case as a class action that could include thousands of current and former workers at HSBC call center facilities in Buffalo, N.Y.; Depew, N.Y.; Chesapeake, Va.; Wood Dale, Ill.; Las Vegas, Nev.; and other locations. According to Mr. Panaccione, "Like many employees at the call center, I came in early and left late, but was only paid for scheduled shifts. In my case, it was one to two extra hours per week, on average, that I gave the company without overtime compensation. That adds up over time." Attorney George A. Hanson, of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody's Kansas City, Mo., office, stated, "The law requires that employers properly record work performed and pay workers for all of the time that they work, not just for their scheduled shifts. Unfortunately, this practice is common to call centers across the country." Justin M. Swartz, an attorney with Outten & Golden's New York City office, stated, "Call center employees work in high-stress, low-pay jobs. Ensuring that workers got paid for all of their well-done should be a top priority of all call center operators such as HSBC." He added that the law firms' investigation of overtime practices involves call centers throughout the nation. The suit is styled, "James Stefaniak and Keith Panaccione v. HSBC Bank USA Inc.," (No. 05 CV 6528) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. For more details, contact Justin M. Swartz or Tammy Marzigliano of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone: (877) 468-8836, E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com or tm@outtengolden.com, Web site: http://www.outtengolden.comOR George A. Hanson or Amy E. Bauman of STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON WOODY, LLP, Phone: (800) 714-0360, E- mail: hanson@sshwlaw.com or bauman@sshwlaw.com, Web site: http://www.sshwlaw.com. KANSAS: Vietnamese Group Sues Wichita Diocese Over Money Shift -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit seeking class action status was launched in Sedgwick County District Court against the Catholic Diocese of Wichita, which alleges that it illegally transferred more than $400,000 from a Vietnamese Catholic group's fund into a church account, The Wichita Eagle reports. Defendants named in the suit include the Catholic Diocese of Wichita and the Rev. Hung Quoc Pham, pastor of St. Anthony's Catholic Church, 256 N. Ohio. However, according to the lawyer and spokeswoman for the diocese, it did only what members of the Vietnamese Catholic community asked it to do. The lawyer also pointed out that the money is in diocesan accounts for the Vietnamese Cultural Center, St. Anthony's Catholic Church and Vietnamese Catholics. The suit was filed in April by Wichitan Thai Hong Mai, who is identified in the lawsuit as a member of a group called the Vietnamese Catholic Community in Wichita, Kansas. The group was formed in 1980 to help Vietnamese Catholics protect and develop Vietnamese culture and support the Catholic Church. According to the suit, in February 2003, then-Bishop Thomas Olmsted issued a statement saying that the group's funds would be placed into St. Anthony Church's account and administered according to diocesan policy and regulations. The group, which had about $420,000 in assets at the time, also indicated in the suit that in May 2003, members of the group's governing board voted to dissolve the group and later to transfer the community's funds to the church account. Lee Thompson, lawyer for Mr. Mai, told The Wichita Eagle that any decision of what to do with the funds required the vote of all members of the group, not just the board, since it was an unincorporated organization. He pointed out, "A committee, which acted only after the bishop announced what he was going to do, did not legally have the authority to make these decisions." However, Karl Hesse, lawyer for the diocese, told The Wichita Eagle that Bishop Olmsted issued his statement only after members of the Vietnamese Catholic community came to him and asked that the diocese take over the funds. Mr. Hesse also stated that members expressed concern over mismanagement of the funds. "They said, 'We just want it off our plate,' " Mr. Hesse adds. Additionally, Mr. Hesse pointed out that an audit was done, and the governing board and other group leaders voted to dissolve the group and transfer the funds, thus after the decision was made the funds were moved into the St. Anthony's account and into a diocesan account for Vietnamese Catholics. He also pointed out that the group's 22 leaders were within their rights when they voted, since it was unclear who comprised the total membership of the group. "They did what made the most sense, given how they had run this group," he states. In July 2003, Bishop Olmsted issued a letter agreeing with the group's decision and recommended that half the funds be deposited in St. Anthony's account at the chancery and half be put into an account for the Interim Vietnamese Diocesan Pastoral Council to support its activities in service to the Vietnamese Catholic community. The funds were placed in those two accounts, Mr. Hesse said. The diocese is in the process of renovating St. Anthony's Catholic Church, but none of the funds used in that project have come from the Vietnamese group's account, according to Amy Pavlacka, director of communication for the diocese. LOUISIANA: French Quarter Residents File Parking Meter Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Residents at Louisiana's French Quarter filed a lawsuit disputing the installation of the new plastic parking meters, alleging that they did not meet the aesthetic requirements of the Vieux Carre, The Times Picayune reports. In a recent news conference wherein they plead their case in the court of public opinion, the residents stated that they have added in their complaint that not only are the city's new parking meters ugly, but they have also been causing drivers to be fined illegally. Stuart H. Smith, the lead plaintiff and a local lawyer stated at the news conference that the city should meet with residents "to determine where people want these meters and where they don't -- we don't want them in the French Quarter." The amended lawsuit also seeks class action status on behalf of all city residents, Mr. Smith adds. The case was recently assigned to Civil District Court Judge Rosemary Ledet. Mr. Smith told Times Picayune that the Vieux Carre residents are not the only ones who believe the bulky green meters interfere with the ambiance of their neighborhoods stating that he has gotten similar complaints from residents of Magazine Street and the Garden District. According to him, the City Planning Commission, the City Council and the Vieux Carre Commission installed the meters this year without notice to the public or review, procedures that he claims are legally required. In addition, he told Times Picayune that according to city law, tickets can be written only when an expired, mechanical meter displays a yellow or red flag. Since the new meters do not display these signals, tickets issued to motorists are illegal, he said. The new meters issue a paper receipt that drivers display on their dashboards, showing when their paid parking time expires. Mr. Smith also stated that he does not know how many tickets have been written during the past seven months or the amount of fines involved, but he intends to get this information. He adds that the amended lawsuit also names a new defendant, the national company ACS State and Local Solutions Inc., both of whom were hired by the city to collect the parking fines. The new solar-powered parking meters, which take credit cards, as well as coins, replaced many of the old meters. Mayor Ray Nagin installed the new meters "unilaterally", the suit says. Mr. Smith told Times Picayune that he was not aware of a case pending in federal court before U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous. In that case, WorldWide Parking, one of the losing bidders for the parking meter contract, has challenged the city's decision to treat the contract award as a professional service, meaning that the job did not have to go to the lowest bidder. The job was awarded to Parking Solutions LLC and Standard Parking Corp., and Mr. Smith's suit contends that both companies had "political ties" to the city. To reinforce his case that the city did not properly notify residents, Mr. Smith pointed to City Councilwoman Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson's proposal to legalize the green meters retroactively. He stated that her proposed ordinance also would delete the requirement that residential property owners be notified of the city's intention to install new meters. The ordinance was scheduled for consideration soon, but the City Council's meeting has been postponed until July 28. A summary of her proposal on the council's Web site said that the ordinance would provide for the use of multi-space pay stations to regulate on-street parking, ratify the installation of such devices already in place, and provide for the enforcement of citations for parking violations issued in connection with these meters. MICHELIN: Refund Offer Not Likely To Please US Grand Prix Fans -------------------------------------------------------------- Some customers are still disgruntled about the US Grand Prix, despite tiremaker Michelin's offer to refund their tickets, 24 Hour News 8 reports. 14 out of 20 cars participating in the Grand Prix refused to race after Michelin earlier told its partners that racing was unsafe after they failed to find out what had caused two crashes in practice at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 23,2005) reports. After the debacle, Michelin offered to refund money to those who bought race tickets and buy 20,000 tickets for those wanting to return for the 2006 race. Michelin is spending $10 million to try to make things right. "At this point, what we'd like to do is just move forward. Let's look forward. Let's do everything in our power to return Grand Prix racing to Indianapolis," Michael Fanning, Michelin, told 24 Hour News 8. The speedway told 24 Hour News 8 the vast majority of the fans bought their tickets through the administration office, and their names are on file with the track. Those fans will receive details by mail on how to get their money back, but they won't need to send in any forms. Spectators who bought tickets at the gate will need to send-in their stubs, along with a refund form which will be available next month. However, some fans think the offer was not enough. Five class actions have already been filed in Indianapolis. "That's what's left unanswered, who is going to pay the rest of the damages that these people suffered, in order to do what Michelin wants to do, which is to re-establish Grand Prix in Indianapolis as a valid and viable spectator event?" Henry Price, one of the attorneys filing suit, told 24 Hour News. Price says fans spent their money for more than just a ticket to one race. "A thousand dollars for travel on the average, a thousand dollars for three or four days of hotel, a hundred dollars a day for food, fifty dollars a day for parking, put all that together, and you have $240-300 million," he said. Mr. Price thinks $10 million is mere pocket change for the people behind the richest racing league in the world. MICHIGAN: Grosse Point Park Losses Lawsuit Over Flood Insurance --------------------------------------------------------------- A decade after city officials first got in hot water for flooding homes in Detroit, Grosse Pointe Park learned that its former insurance company wouldn't have to pay for the mishap, The Detroit News reports. According to a recent ruling by the state's Supreme Court, the Michigan Municipal Liability and Property Pool does not owe Grosse Pointe Park the $1.9 million it paid to settle with angry homeowners in 1997. After the ruling was handed down, Herold Deason, city attorney for Grosse Pointe Park told The Detroit News, "We are obviously disappointed the court didn't see it our way. The city could have used the money." The problem began with a longstanding policy Grosse Pointe Park had of dumping sewage into Fox Creek, which straddles Detroit, when its sewage system was strained, typically during heavy rains. On July 24, 1995, Grosse Pointe Park sent overflow rain and sewage into the creek. Two months later, homeowners whose yards and basements were ruined launched a class action suit for flooding damages. Since 1940, the city had dumped overflow waste into the creek and has continued to do so until 1995. Grosse Pointe Park used to have a single pipeline that pumped rain and sewage to the city of Detroit's nearby filtering plant. Under the city's insurance policy, Michigan Municipal Liability would cover claims of sewage-backup damage to residents and businesses because of system failures. However, the city's decision to intentionally direct overflow sewage into the creek was simply pollution, not system failure, the insurer maintained and because of that, it refused to cover the city. In two 26-page opinions, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed to the insurers arguments. Justice Robert Young writing on behalf of the court, "It is difficult to imagine an insurance policy that is clearer or more explicit." The city had paid the 1997 settlement with the residents and then sued its insurer. Wayne County Circuit Judge Amy Hathaway sided with the city, saying the insurance company had always paid damage claims before. But, the Supreme Court said that didn't prevent Michigan Municipal Liability from balking this time. As part of the August 1997 settlement with the homeowners, Grosse Pointe Park now has separate sewer and rainwater lines and no longer dumps into Fox Creek. That settlement required Grosse Pointe Park and the city of Detroit to each pay $1.9 million to residents whose homes were flooded. Michigan Municipal Liability is a self-insurance operation involving several municipalities who pool their money. Grosse Pointe Park has not used the insurer since 1998. OHIO: OHCA Launches Suit Over Biennial Budget Bill's Provisions --------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio's largest organization representing long-term care providers commenced a class action lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) and the Ohio Department of Health. The lawsuit by the Ohio Health Care Association (OHCA) and several association members asserts that provisions of the recently passed biennial budget bill violate federal and state law. "We must stand up for our members and protest some of the things that the budget bill does," said Peter Van Runkle, OHCA's President and Chief Executive Officer. "There are provisions in the bill that inappropriately penalize people who are trying to provide quality care to Ohio's seniors," he added. The suit (Ohio Health Care Association, et al. v. Barbara Riley, Director, et al), which was filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, takes aim at a new formula for Medicaid payments to nursing homes being implemented by ODJFS. "The new price-based system does not take adequate account of capital expenditures that providers need to make so residents can have safe, pleasant living environments and to comply with ever- increasing building regulations," said Mr. Van Runkle. OHCA's lawsuit points out that the state did not follow the requirements of federal law when it adopted the new pricing system. "Our members didn't have an opportunity for input into this new formula before it was put in place, as the federal law mandates," Mr. Van Runkle said. "The way the pricing system deals with capital costs is not best for Ohio's seniors and should be changed." He noted that OHCA is generally supportive of other aspects of the pricing system and believes it should be implemented even more quickly than the budget bill provides. The association's suit also challenges provisions in the budget bill that penalize providers who are in the process of replacing or upgrading aging nursing homes. "These people made long-term financial commitments in good faith, based on a set of rules that have been in place for many years. The rug has been pulled out from under them, and that needs to be fixed," said Mr. Van Runkle. The association's complaint asks the court to declare the offending sections of the budget bill to be invalid and to enjoin ODJFS from enforcing them. The complaint also asks the court to order ODJFS to pay for new or renovated nursing homes under the law in effect when the projects began. A copy of the lawsuit is available at www.ohca.org/uploads/news/lawsuit7-20-05.pdf. OHIO: Presiding Judge OKs $120M Fund For Priest Abuse Victims ------------------------------------------------------------- Special Judge John Potter of Louisville, who is presiding over the nation's only class action suit alleging sexual abuse by priests, recently gave his approval of the settlement agreement in writing, The Cincinnati.com reports. The judge's action was the catalyst that the Covington Diocese and lawyers for sexual abuse victims were waiting for before they start the process to compensate victims. Under the settlement an advertisement announcing the much-touted settlement plan will be published in USA Today on July 21. That advertisement will be followed with the same announcement in newspapers across Kentucky, including the Kentucky Enquirer. In addition, there will be radio and television spots for the settlement. The advertising blitz is to inform potential victims of the settlement fund. Anyone choosing to submit a claim to the fund will be required to submit a confidential form by November 10. Objections to the compensation fund must be submitted to the court in writing by December 19. A hearing on whether the proposed settlement is fair is set for January 9, 2006, in the Boone County Justice Center. The settlement fund will immediately include $40 million provided by the diocese. The remaining $80 million was to be provided by the diocese's insurance carriers. Recently, the diocese filed suit in federal court in an attempt to force them to contribute the amount to the $120 million compensation fund. Additionally, the settlement calls for a special administrator to evaluate the claims and pay the money. That administrator will be asked to divide claims based on the severity and type of abuse, thus settlements would range from $5,000 to $450,000. There is a special clause in the agreement that says people with the most severe abuse can ask for up to an additional $550,000 - meaning the most any one person could receive is $1 million. Both the diocese and plaintiff's attorneys must agree with the administrator for any additional money to be awarded. Any money not paid out in claims will be given back to the diocese. The class action lawsuit, as previously reported in the February 18, 2003 edition of the Class Action Reporter, was filed in Boone County Circuit Court by Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley, claims that 21 priests and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did nothing to stop the misconduct. According to the court filings, from about 1956, information on the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed from the public, including parents of children in schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which is just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year cover- up of sexual abuse by priests and others. PEPSI BOTTLING: Receives $24M Share in Corn Syrup Antitrust Pact ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. received a total of $24 million as its share in the settlement proceeds attributable to its current bottling operations previously owned by PepsiCo, in the antitrust class action filed against three of the Company's suppliers on the sale of high fructose corn syrup from 1991 and 1995. About 20 corn syrup buyers initially filed the suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois against several corn processors, alleging that they violated antitrust laws from 1988 to 1995 by conspiring to artificially inflate the price of high fructose corn syrup. About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit, including Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Quaker Oats, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 30,2004) states. In July 2004, the parties in the suit forged a $531 million settlement for the suit. The settlement amount was allocated to each class action recipient based on the proportion of its purchases of high fructose corn syrup from these suppliers during the period 1991 through 1995 to the total of such purchases by all class action recipients. From 1991 to 1995, the Company was still part of PepsiCo. On June 28, 2005, the Company and PepsiCo entered into a settlement agreement under which the Company will receive 45.8% of the settlement proceeds attributable to current PBG bottling operations that were previously owned by PepsiCo (the "PepsiCo Recovery"). Subsequent to the end of the second quarter, the court overseeing the lawsuit approved payment of 90% of claim awards, including the PepsiCo Recovery. In connection with this partial payment of the PepsiCo Recovery and in accordance with the Company's agreement with PepsiCo, the Company received $21 million. The Company also received an additional $3 million as a result of certain other claims it had submitted, which are unrelated to the bottling operations previously owned by PepsiCo. These amounts will be recognized in the third quarter of 2005. The Company currently intends to utilize settlement proceeds to fund long-term, strategic productivity initiatives, it disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is styled "In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States District court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division. Representing the plaintiffs were: (1) Mr. Michael J. Freed of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament Bell & Rubenstein, P.C., 200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601-1095 (2) Mr. Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP 805 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (3) Mr. H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 PIZZA HUT: CA Court Strikes Certain Class Members From FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of California granted Pizza Hut, Inc.'s motion to strike certain members of the class in the lawsuit filed against it, alleging violations of the United States Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The suit, entitled "Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc.," was filed on August 13, 2003, alleging that the Company's current and former Pizza Hut Restaurant General Managers (RGMs) were improperly classified as exempt employees. There is also a pendent state law claim, alleging that current and former RGMs in California were misclassified under that state's law. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages and penalties. On May 5, 2004, the District Court granted conditional certification of a nationwide class of RGMs under the FLSA claim, providing notice to prospective class members and an opportunity to join the class. Approximately 12 percent of the eligible class members have joined the litigation as of June 29, 2005 (although a number were later stricken by the District Court, as described below). Once class certification discovery is completed, the Company intends to challenge the propriety of conditional class certification. On July 20, 2004, the District Court granted summary judgment on Ms. Coldiron's individual FLSA claim. The Company believes that the District Court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Ms. Coldiron is clearly erroneous under well-established legal precedent. Ms. Coldiron also filed a motion to certify an additional class of current and former California RGMs under California state law, a motion for summary judgment on her individual state law claims and a motion requesting that the District Court enter summary judgment on the damages that FLSA class members would be due upon successful prosecution of the class-wide litigation. The Company opposed all three motions. On April 1, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting Ms. Coldiron's motion to certify a California state law class. On April 15, 2005, the Company filed a petition for review of that order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 5, 2005, the District Court sua sponte filed an order extending the opt-in cut-off date in the FLSA action until September 1, 2005. On May 13, 2005, the District Court sua sponte amended its April 1, 2005 order to identify the California class claims and appoint class counsel. On May 27, 2005, the Company filed a petition for review of the amended order by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on either petition. On June 30, 2005, the District Court granted the Company's motion to strike all FLSA class members who joined the litigation after July 15, 2004. The effect of this order is to reduce the number of FLSA class members to only approximately 87 (or approximately 2.5% of the eligible class members). The suit is styled "Ann Coldiron v. Pizza Hut Inc., et al., case no. 2:03-cv-05865-TJH-Mc," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Terry J. Hatter. Representing the plaintiffs are Bicvan T. Brown, Rex Hwang, Justian Jusuf, Gregory G. Petersen, and H. Ernie Nishii of Castle Petersen and Krause, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250 Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-417-5600, E-mail: justian@cpk-law.com; and Catherine Starr of Catherine Starr Law Offices, 24325 Crenshaw Blvd, Suite 211, Torrance, CA 90505 Phone: 310-539-4806, Fax: 310-539-2454. Representing the Company are: (1) Andra Barmash Greene, Layn R. Phillips, Henry Shields, Jr. and Bruce A. Wessell, Irell & Manella, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276, Phone: 310-277-1010, fax: 310-203-7199, E-mail: lphillips@irell.com, hshields@irell.com or bwessell@irell.com (2) George A McNamee, III, Richard S. Ruben, Ellen Laguerta Uy, Paula Maxine Weber, Pillsbury Winthrop, 725 S Figueroa St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406, Phone: 213-488-7100 PRB CONTRACTING: VT AG Initiates Home Improvement Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell's Office filed a complaint against Paul Beaulieu of Essex, Vermont with seven counts of home improvement fraud. The charges allege that between June of 2003 and December of 2004, Mr. Beaulieu, doing business as either Articulate Painting and Contracting or PRB Contracting engaged in a pattern and practice of entering into agreements with homeowners to perform home improvement projects, collected substantial payments toward the work and then either did not start or complete the work. The Vermont Attorney General's Office is continuing its investigation into Mr. Beaulieu's contracting activities. For more details, contact Attorney General Investigator Thomas Howell by Phone: (802) 828-5512 or Craig Matanle, Assistant Attorney General, by Mail: 109 State Street, Montpelier VT 05609-1001, by Phone: (802) 828-3171, by Fax: (802) 828-5341 or visit the Website: http://www.state.vt.us/atg/ SOUTH DAKOTA: AG To Give Share in Taxol Settlement To Charities --------------------------------------------------------------- As the result of an antitrust settlement with the drug Taxol, the South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long's Office has been awarded $12,476.70 for distribution to a nonprofit charitable organization, which provides services, benefits and assistance to cancer patients and their families. The settlement money will be distributed to the Rapid City Regional Hospital's Cancer Care Institute. The money will be used to provide financial assistance to cancer patients and their families to cover costs of accommodations, transportation and food needs of patients and family members who travel to Rapid City Regional for cancer treatment. These types of expenses are typically not covered by insurance or health care coverage plans. "This settlement effectively allows us to give the money right back to the cancer victims and their families," said Mr. Long. "We hope that this settlement money will help offset some of the costs accrued while traveling for cancer treatment." For additional information about the settlement, contact Sara Rabern by Phone: 605-773-3215 or Rapid City Regional's Public Relations Office by Phone: 605-719-7514 for more information about the Cancer Care Institute, or visit the Website: http://www.state.sd.us/attorney. TXU ELECTRIC: Rusk City Accepts Share Ratepayer Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rusk City Council in Texas agreed to accept money from TXU Electric Delivery as part of a settlement of litigation, regarding justification of TXU rates, the Jacksonville Daily Progress reports. Several customer cities in Texas, not including Rusk, filed a lawsuit against the Company. TXU Spokesperson Carol Peters said in an earlier interview with the Daily Progress, agreements were reached with the customer cities to settle litigation against the company, but settlement money was to be distributed to more than just the approximate 20 cities that filed suits. She said the settlement offered to Rusk and other cities not involved in the original litigation is being made "in good faith" as an incentive to not initiate further litigation concerning TXU Electric Delivery's rates prior to July 1, 2006. The council members voted unanimously to accept the settlement. "There was a class action suit we did not participate in, but we'll benefit from," Rusk Mayor Suzann McCarty told the Daily Progress. The city of Rusk will receive $18,175.52 this year, and another payment of $17,309.54 will be made by TXU in March 2006. Councilmember Don Jones asked how long the company would make the payments to the city of Rusk. "If we initiate any legal action (or) ... intervene in any legal action (or ) ... participate in legal action (against TXU), it stops," City Attorney Forrest Phifer told the Daily Progress. TOYOBO COMPANY: Ohio To Receive Share in Zylon Vest Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A court approved preliminary settlement could provide Ohio law enforcement with a refund or assist in the replacement of defective Second Chance-brand bullet proof vests in a nationwide class action case, Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro said in a statement. The proposed settlement comes as part of a private class action by the Southern States Police Benevolent Association ("SSPBA") against Toyobo Co., Ltd. and Toyobo America, Inc., as well as Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. and others. The District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, issued a preliminary order approving the settlement with Toyobo Co., Ltd. and Toyobo America, Inc. This settlement does not include Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. Litigation against that company is currently stayed due to its bankruptcy status. "Through letters to the law enforcement community I am recommending that they review the proposed preliminary settlement carefully with their local prosecutor or legal representative," said Mr. Petro. "My office will continue to update Ohioans about additional information regarding Second Chance." The settlement provides $29 million to purchasers and owners of Second Chance vests containing Zylonr, including Ultima, Ultimax and Triflex model vests. Purchasers and owners of these vests will have three options to choose from if they elect to participate in the settlement. Purchasers and owners should receive notification by mail soon that will explain the settlement options in detail, along with instructions on how to file a claim to participate in the settlement or how to opt out or object to it. More information can be found at www.zylonvestclassaction.com or by calling the claims administrator at 1-877-567-2754. Additional information may be found on the SSPBA website, www.sspba.org, or by contacting class counsel W. Pitts Carr at 1-888-755-1649 or Allan Kanner at 1-800-331-1546. Summaries of the three settlement options are: (1) Option 1 - A cash option to receive a pro rata share of the $29 million settlement fund. The amount each officer or agency receives is dependent on the total number of Class Members that participate in the settlement. Each Class Member selecting this option is free to use the money received from the Settlement Fund in any manner they choose. (2) Option 2 - Class members may elect to use their pro rata share of cash from the Settlement Fund to purchase a replacement vest from Armor Holdings Products, L.L.C. The company will be responsible for all transaction costs associated with the purchase and delivery of these vests. (3) Option 3 - Class members may elect to receive a nonrefundable credit or voucher from Armor worth $25 more than their pro rata share of cash from the settlement fund to purchase an Armor replacement vest or any other Armor product available from its distributors. For Additional Information on this Press Release, contact Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's Office, by Phone: (614) 466-3840 or visit the Website: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/. UNITED STATES: FDA Issues Safety Alert on Recalled Smoked Salmon ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a Safety Alert to consumers about the recall of Smoked Salmon Skinless Sliced Sides packaged in various 2 to 4 lb. weight packages because they may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The products are sold under the brand names: Imperial Salmon House, Superior brand Norwegian Cure and Golden Eagle Smoked Salmon. The alert extends to packages produced on June 13th, 2005 and have a shelf life of 3-4 months if maintained in an un-opened frozen state, four days if kept refrigerated. They are sold in individual 2 to 4 lb. packages labeled as: "Processed by Hickory House, Hialeah, FL 33016", "21555, Product of the USA", "keep frozen until ready to use." The product was sold in Florida, Georgia, New York and Virginia. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism, which can be serious and sometimes cause 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. If you experience the symptoms listed above, you should contact your health care provider. No illnesses have been reported to date. The contamination was noted after routine testing by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes. Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to destroy it. Questions may be directed to the recalling firm, Golden Eagle Smoked Foods, Inc., DBA Hickory House, Hialeah, FL 33016 at (305) 512-5900. WASHINGTON: Utah Women Sue DOC Over Sex Offender's Supervision -------------------------------------------------------------- The state's failure to provide supervision for a convicted sex offender has led to a lawsuit against the state filed by two women shot by the man in 2004. The suit, filed July 18, 2005, alleges that the Department of Corrections (DOC) failed to provide even minimal supervision to Richard Wilson, although the twice-convicted sex offender required the highest level of oversight by DOC standards. On June 9, 2004, Mr. Wilson robbed and shot both Kimberli Lingard and Diana "Dee" Jensen within hours of each other, leaving them for dead -- the final victims of his crime spree that included robbery, rape and murder. Mr. Wilson's 24-day crime spree ended when he killed himself after a high-speed police chase near the Utah-Nevada border. "These people were victims of brutal crimes at the hands of a high-risk, repeat offender," said Tony Shapiro, attorney for the Lingard and Jensen families. "However, they were also victims of a corrections system that has failed to make the public's safety its number-one priority." When Mr. Wilson was released in February 2004, the Department of Corrections knew that he was an offender who was at high risk to re-offend. According to the complaint, the DOC knew Mr. Wilson was a violent drug user who had previously tried to evade DOC supervision. Mr. Wilson had a felony criminal history dating back to 1989 including robbery, rape, theft, and failure to register as a sex offender, the complaint states. In 1995, he was convicted of committing rape at knifepoint in Vancouver, Washington. He was released in February 2004 after serving the minimum term. According to the complaint, Mr. Wilson was required to be supervised by the DOC upon his release. The suit states that Mr. Wilson's community corrections officer (CCO) met with him on four occasions between March 5 and March 24, 2004, but failed to follow up after that date. The complaint notes that aside from a urinalysis on April 13, 2004, the DOC had no other contact with Mr. Wilson, with no attempted home visits or field contacts. On May 18, 2004, Mr. Wilson's CCO called his home and indicated to Wilson's mother that Wilson needed to report to the DOC, the suit states. When Mr. Wilson never showed up, neither his CCO nor any other DOC representative did anything to follow up. "We intend to show that the DOC did very little to ensure that Wilson was working or performing community service, and otherwise abiding by the terms of his release," Mr. Shapiro said. "This complete failure by the DOC ultimately caused tremendous harm to a number of innocent victims. "The DOC's lack of meaningful supervision of Mr. Wilson is even more startling when one compares his CCO's supervision of Wilson in 2004 with his prior supervision of Wilson in 2001 through early June 2002," Mr. Shapiro added. "During that time, his CCO made many field contacts with Wilson, administered 15 urinalysis tests to ensure that Wilson was not using illegal drugs, and yet Wilson still managed to abscond after stealing a truck and a credit card. "Mr. Wilson's CCO knew that even the level of supervision he used in 2001-2002 was insufficient," Mr. Shapiro said. The DOC's supervision was so inadequate that they were unaware of Mr. Wilson's death. His corrections officer had a bench warrant issued for Mr. Wilson's arrest on June 21, 2004 -- nine days after he committed suicide, according to court documents. "The DOC requires that an offender like Mr. Wilson, who is listed in the highest and most dangerous category of offenders, be given the highest level of supervision," Mr. Shapiro said. "Had the DOC followed its own policies, directives and training, Mr. Wilson's whereabouts would have been known on June 9, 2004 and Kimberli Lingard and Diana Jensen would not have been shot and severely injured." Ms. Lingard, who underwent several hours of brain surgery and an angiogram, was hospitalized for more than three weeks. She suffered permanent nerve damage, sensory loss, and cognitive impairments. Mrs. Jensen was hospitalized and her injuries resulted in permanent disabilities. In addition to her physical injuries, Mrs. Jensen and her husband suffered severe financial losses as the gas station they owned failed after the shooting. The suit seeks damages for both Ms. Lingard and Mrs. Jensen's physical injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress, past and future medical expenses, wage loss, other expenses, and other economic damages. For more details, contact Tony Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Phone: +1-206-623-7292, E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dockyard Worker Dies from Asbestos Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- At last week's inquest, the Coroner recorded a verdict of death due to industrial disease in the case of a worker who had contact with asbestos dust while working at a Government dockyard. Retired marine engineer and fitter Edgar Harris, aged 76, of Peasland Road, Sidmouth, died of mesothelioma, an asbestos- linked cancer of the lining of the lungs. Mr. Harris had formerly worked in the dockyard at Portsmouth from 1943. He also worked as an apprentice in boiler rooms, where pipes were lagged with asbestos. Court documents revealed that before his death, he stated that it was "like working in a snowstorm of asbestos particles." Dr. Elizabeth Earland, the Exeter and Greater Devon Coroner, said he had been diagnosed as terminally ill and had died at home last May 10 after becoming exposed to asbestos during his working life. According to his widow, Daisy, a successful claim for compensation had been made against the Ministry of Defense. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Party Urges Gov't to Rush Asbestos Removal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Liberal Party is urging the Queensland government to fast track the removal of cancer-causing asbestos fiber from the public schools, The Bayside Bulletin reports. The Queensland Liberals are also calling for the Education Minister Anna Bligh to be replaced over the May-June report, which shows asbestos is present in 21 schools, proving that the Minister has misled parents and teachers regarding the state of contamination. As previously reported in the May 27, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the Queensland Government moved to allocate an extra $120 million in the state budget to replace more than 1,100 asbestos-riddled roofs in 370 schools. The program is slated to begin with a $7.2 million allocation to replace 70 roofs in 61 schools over the next financial year. Premier Peter Beattie also told the Parliament that the work would be carried out in over 10 years. Federal Member for Bowman Andrew Laming said Redland children could remain at risk of contracting asbestos-related illnesses for the whole length of these 10 years. In the Redland Shire alone there are close to 20 public schools containing asbestos fiber, including eight with asbestos roofs. Mr. Laming called on local State MPs, Messrs Choi, Briskey, and English to petition the Premier and Education Minister to resolve the problem. State Member for Capalaba, Michael Choi, replied that asbestos removal could not "happen overnight." He said that there was no risk to pupils unless the asbestos in the buildings would be disturbed. Queensland has yet to adopt a national safety code requiring clear labeling of asbestos in schools. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in April declared a new code of practice for the management of asbestos in workplaces, requiring warning signs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conference Turns Focus on Staff Education -------------------------------------------------------------- On Asbestos Awareness Day, leading experts reiterated their call for employers to educate their staff about the dangers of asbestos in the workplace. More than 200 people across the UK attended the event, which was hosted by Bristol-based refurbishment company Midas Property Services and Shield Environmental Services. The event was aimed at helping employers reduce the risks of asbestos in the workplace. Aside from the presentations, the Bristol conference also had trade displays, exhibitions, handouts and free health checks. Safety Officer Tony Abbott said that although there are more safety measures nowadays, people are still being put at risk by unknowingly working on or near to asbestos-containing materials. He emphasized the duty of care that every business owes to its employees. He said that the risk of exposure occurs when changes are made to building structures, such as during refurbishment work, which can disturb and release harmful asbestos fibers "It is vital that companies educate their workforce about the risk of asbestos exposure and have a risk management plan in place to reduce the likelihood of this happening," Mr. Abbott added. Asbestos-associated diseases are the biggest cause of work- related deaths in the UK. According to the Health and Safety Executive, 3,500 people die every year as a result of exposure to asbestos. The agency predicts that the death toll will increase to 10,000 by 2010. Despite new safety measures, the number of asbestos-related deaths is set to increase because illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure can take up to 60 years to manifest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby School Case Adjourned Until September ---------------------------------------------------------------- Court magistrates adjourned the case related to the release of asbestos dust at a Derby primary school until September 8, 2005. Silverhill Primary was shut for eight weeks after asbestos was discovered during routine maintenance work. The contamination occurred during the replacement of up to 30 windows. Contractors broke wall panels exposing the asbestos from February 16 last year, but the problem was not discovered until March 9. The incident exposed 400 pupils and staff to the potentially fatal substance over a three-week period. More than GBP750,000 had been spent for the decontamination after asbestos was discovered last March. The school reopened in May 2004 after being closed for three months. The city council and Peter Westran, from Horizon Windows and Glass, are accused of failing to ensure the safety of employees. Former head teacher Philip Robinson is charged with failing to ensure the health and safety of others. The Environment Agency confirmed it has also charged Horizon Glass and Windows under the 1990 Environmental Protection Act, concerning the depositing of asbestos. No pleas have been entered in the case. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Probes Dumping Incident at AU Toll Road ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Environmental Protection Authority is investigating claims that asbestos was dumped illegally on land where construction of the new toll road is ongoing. A truck driver said in a statutory declaration that he dumped two loads of asbestos at a Ringwood Eastlink reserve near Summer Lane. Senior manager of urban services Stuart McConnell said they were first informed of the illegal dumping in May and are conducting further investigations. However, he claims that they did not find any visible signs of asbestos during a site inspection before receiving the declaration. The EPA is working with Theiss John Holland, which was constructing the tollway, to address the clean up of the site. Opposition spokesman for the environment, Phil Honeywood, said the Government had a responsibility to ensure the company building the tollway managed their site according to environmental regulations. He is calling for an independent audit to resolve the issue. Whitehorse City councilor Chris Aubrey said residents and workers could have been exposed by any allegedly dumped asbestos. A spokesman for Theiss John Holland said they were awaiting the outcome of the EPA investigation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Govt Expands Coverage in Benefits Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Considered a major breakthrough, lung cancer sufferers exposed to asbestos will soon be able to get government benefits for the first time and will have increased chances of claiming compensation. In the past, these people were disadvantaged since only those with asbestos-related diseases such as asbestosis, mesothelioma, and pleural thickening could claim benefits. Being afflicted with lung cancer alone and not one of the other diseases set back the case since it was thought the illness could have developed from other causes, such as smoking. Leading industrial diseases lawyer Brigitte Chandler, who herself has fought successfully for many Swindon people through the courts, has hailed the government's change of stance. Ms. Chandler, a solicitor with law firm Charles Lucas & Marshall is urging lung cancer sufferers exposed heavily to asbestos and their partners to apply for the government pension as soon as the regulations are in force. She is also encouraging them to seek legal advice now that they are more likely to take a claim for compensation successfully to court. The asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma - dubbed the Swindon Disease - has accounted for thousands of deaths in Swindon, many of whom worked at the Great Western Railway in the town. Thousands of people were exposed to asbestos between the 1940s and 1970s when working in the railway industry and shipbuilding and construction. Margaret Hodge, minister for Employment and welfare Reform accepted all the report recommendations from the Industrial Diseases Advisory Council to change the schedule of prescribed diseases. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Corp.'s Lone Pending Suit Inactive ------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Corporation (AMEX: CCF), a diversified manufacturing Company providing a wide-variety of high quality products and services, is one of over a hundred defendants in a personal injury lawsuit, which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in Chase products. This lawsuit, pending in Ohio, has been inactive with respect to Chase since the Company was named as a defendant in July 2004. The Company, based in Bridgewater, MA, was dismissed from another personal injury lawsuit in early 2005. It had likewise been named as a defendant in the suit alleging injury from exposure to asbestos contained in the Company's products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Conducts Testing on Demolition Methods --------------------------------------------------------------- After a previous demolition proved to have released "unacceptable levels" of asbestos in the air, the Environmental Protection Agency will be revising its protocols and will be using a different technique in its next project in downtown Libby, Montana. In late June, the EPA tore down a dilapidated structure between Epperson Mountaineering and Tony's Muffler in Libby. According to information released by the agency, extensive air and dust sampling taken indicated the presence of asbestos at the immediate work site. EPA project manager Peggy Churchill said that samples, which were taken throughout the three days workers were on the site, are still being analyzed but it is clear that the contamination was confined to the work area and did not extend beyond the perimeter. To get the data, air monitors were set up at different heights in three rings extending from the immediate work site. Dust was also collected at locations around the area and indoors of nearby businesses. Samples are being studied to determine at what points in the demolition asbestos fibers were released and how they behaved once they were in the air. The initial demolition had followed a nationally reviewed workplan drawn up by the EPA. However, the next will be conducted in a considerably different manner. The house to be torn down will be pre-wet and water will be sprayed directly into the wall cavities over the 24 hours preceding demolition. Quick analysis of samples is planned for updates while demolition work is in progress. EPA policy calls for buildings to be cleaned of asbestos contamination before demolition, except in cases where the building is structurally unsound, as in the case of the downtown building, or impossible to clean, as with the house being demolished this week. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Asbestos Group Lobbying Delayed Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- In 1992, Japanese lawmakers discarded a proposed bill seeking to ban asbestos after an asbestos industry group lobbied against it, according to the daily Mainichi Shimbun. The Japan Asbestos Association had said the dangers of asbestos had been exaggerated. It reasoned further that alternatives to asbestos would be expensive and that the safety of these substitutions had not been adequately verified anyway. As disclosed last Friday, July 15, 2005, in the Class Action Reporter, the health ministry plans to ban all asbestos use by 2008 following reports that hundreds of workers at various companies have died from asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos remains to be used to make gaskets for machinery, insulating plates for switchboards, seals for chemical plants and industrial rope. Accusations of government negligence over its policies on asbestos now proliferate especially since it was yet in 1980 that the World Health Organization sent out a warning about the carcinogenic material. Japan did not ban the two most toxic kinds of asbestos until 1995 and prohibited asbestos use in construction only last year. Socialist lawmakers proposed this bill in 1992 that would have banned the use, sale or manufacture of asbestos. The bill also called for surveys on its health effects. An association official was quoted as saying, "The association at that time probably believed that asbestos was safe if laws and government directives were obeyed. This is different from both the present social situation and the thinking of the association." In the past two weeks, revelations of asbestos-linked deaths from about 33 companies in Japan have hogged the media. Health Ministry data shows that nearly 900 people died from mesothelioma, a lethal cancer of the chest caused mainly by asbestos exposure, in 2003 alone. Asbestos was extensively used in construction in Japan because the nation's population density makes fire prevention a priority. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Junking of Suit V. John Crane ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania on May 24, 2005 affirmed the decision to dismiss the asbestos-related injury suit against John Crane Inc., citing failure to comply with Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations. Marilyn Shaw, widow and executrix of the estate of John Shaw, filed the appeal from the order dated March 8, 2005 that dismissed her claim. John Shaw claimed that he commenced this civil action against John Crane Inc. within two years of when he was diagnosed with an asbestos-related cancer. Court records show that on September 25, 1985, the Shaws filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in which he named numerous defendants but did not name John Crane, Inc. In the 1985 lawsuit, Mr. Shaw filed a negligent claim and strict liability claim for exposure to asbestos in his work area. From 1952 to 1984, Mr. Shaw continually worked with, used, handled and was caused to come in contact with and be exposed to the defendants' asbestos products. He was employed as a laborer in 1952, as a lab technician from 1953 to 1954, as a laborer from 1954 to 1955, as a welder from 1955 to 1957, as a maintenance security worker from 1957 to 1958, as an insulator from 1958 to 1967, and as an inspector from 1967 to 1984; all of the above at the Sun Oil Company in Marcus Hook, PA. In January 2, 1985, Mr. Shaw became aware that he suffered from asbestosis and chronic restrictive pulmonary lung disease. As a result, he claimed to suffer from severe anxiety possibly rising to a traumatic neurosis or cancerophobia due to knowledge that he is likely or could possibly contract cancer because of his exposure to asbestos at his work place. In its defense, John Crane, Inc. contended that at the time the 2003 civil action was filed, the plaintiff already knew of his asbestos-related condition 18 years previously. It argued that an action for personal injury in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must be commenced within a two-year statute of limitations. The Court, presided by Judge Norman Ackerman, held that no error was committed in granting John Crane's motion for summary judgment in this suit. It stated that Mr. Shaw had an opportunity in 1985 to recover damages for both an asbestos- related condition and for fear and risk of cancer. It stated that because Mr. Shaw chose not to assert such claims against John Crane then, he is barred from bringing this action. John Crane, a subsidiary of the UK's Smiths Group plc, manufactures seals, packings, lubrication systems and power transmission couplings. Headquartered in Morton Grove, IL, John Crane has more than 25 offices across the US and a presence in more than 20 other countries throughout the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New U.S. Lawsuits Loom Before James Hardie --------------------------------------------------------------- New lawsuits threaten James Hardie Industries over its asbestos exports to the United States and its involvement in asbestos mines and mills in South Africa, reports The Australian. Hardie, being one of the few former asbestos producers in the U.S. that has not gone bankrupt and continues to make huge profits, has encouraged US law firms to seek opportunities to sue it. Hardie exported asbestos building products and brake blocks from Australia to the U.S. from the 1960s to the 1980s. Several US law firms are also considering suing the company for its involvement in South African blue asbestos mines. Hardie is the second-largest shareholder in Cape Asbestos, which has been sued in numerous asbestos compensation cases in the U.S. Cape Asbestos had exported its products to the U.S. but its main owner, Cape Plc, would not answer suits. Earlier this year, Hardie's asbestos compensation trust had paid out US$250,000 to an American victim. The company is believed to face a Californian court for allegedly killing two Americans with its asbestos exports. Hardie chief financial officer Russell Chenu at the time played down the company's American exposure, saying the asbestos exports to the U.S. had been "modest." The US legal newsletter Mealeys Law Report revealed that Hardie, which now has the vast majority of its operations in the U.S., had been named in 75 asbestos suits in the San Francisco jurisdiction alone since 1999, with several cases pending. David Dogan, whose law firm Dogan & Wilkinson of Jackson, Mississippi, represents U.S. companies that manufactured asbestos, said he planned to have Hardie brought in as a co- defendant to share the costs. Hardie spokesman James Rickards said that the Company continued to believe the prospects of actions against it in the U.S., or for its past involvement in Cape Asbestos, were minimal. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK School Exposure Causes Teacher's Death -------------------------------------------------------------- The Greater Manchester Coroner's Court heard that asbestos exposure at Culcheth High School caused the death of a former teacher. Barrie Cunliffe, who died of asbestos-induced lung cancer in June 2005, taught geography at the school and headed the Bronte house from 1966 until 1972. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2004. In a statement made before he died, he described several instances of exposure to asbestos, including working near an asbestos factory in Rochdale and on a secondment to Laportes factory in Widnes. However, during the inquest, two colleagues from Culcheth High School, head teacher Brian Stevens, and teacher John Leach, both remembered working on lagged piping as the old school building was rebuilt from 1969 to 1970. Mr. Cunliffe's classroom was down the corridor from where most of the work was carried out. Simon Nelson, Coroner for Greater Manchester North, recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease. Solicitors acting for his widow, Yvonne, have now begun a compensation claim against Lancashire County Council, which ran the school at the time. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group Finds Fault in Cape's Funding Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos campaigners criticized the proposed GBP40 million asbestos fund, saying that the scheme is "unacceptable to Cape's asbestos victims." The fund, which is meant to cap UK multinational Cape Plc's asbestos liabilities, would be reviewed by an independent body every three years and topped up only if Cape has sufficient funds. The scheme, which would need to be approved by the courts, would protect Cape from asbestos litigation within the UK and remove the threat of insolvency should asbestos claims increase dramatically. The English Asbestos Victims Support Groups' Forum said the proposed fund, which will be overseen by a Cape subsidiary, would receive GBP40 million to compensate Cape's UK asbestos victims for the next 12 years. Cape, which owned the Barking's until the 1960s when it was closed, allocated the fund to cover all UK claims made by former employees, who have contracted the asbestos-related lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses, including their families. Tony Whitston, spokesperson for the Forum, said the group was not convinced by supposed safeguards on the fund. He added, "If claims were to increase, there is no guarantee that Cape will top up the fund and asbestos victims would be left high and dry." Many mesothelioma settlements are in six figures, and at least two have broken the GBP1 million mark, the largest being GBP4.37 million in 2003. Mr. Whitston said that all previous schemes to cap companies' asbestos disease liabilities have disadvantaged asbestos victims. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Court Affirms Junking of 33 Suits V. CCR ---------------------------------------------------------------- The First District of the Court of Appeal of California on July 15, 2005 affirmed a trial court ruling, which dismissed 33 asbestos-related cases brought against the Center for Claims Resolution for its failure to fund a portion of the settlements owed by GAF Corporation. In earlier litigation, the 33 plaintiffs filed suits against GAF Corporation and 20 other defendants in which they alleged personal injuries from exposure to asbestos products. They settled those in negotiations with the Center for Claims Resolution, which is a corporation formed by a consortium of former asbestos producers to coordinate the defense and settlement of asbestos personal injury claims. As part of the agreement, they released from liability all CCR members as well as their related companies, employees, distributors, and insurers. For each plaintiff, CCR negotiated a single lump-sum payment without disclosing which of its members would fund the settlement. CCR billed GAF for its share of the settlements negotiated with plaintiffs, but GAF stopped making payments and filed for bankruptcy on January 5, 2001. Plaintiffs initiated this litigation, in which they sought to hold CCR liable for GAF's unfunded portion of the settlements. CCR filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that CCR itself is not responsible because it was acting only as an agent for fully disclosed principals. GAF and 20 other former asbestos producers formed CCR in 1988 to coordinate the defense and settlement of asbestos personal injury claims against them. CCR has settled tens of thousands of asbestos claims asserted against its members. Between November 1998 and December 1999, CCR negotiated settlements with plaintiffs in the underlying asbestos litigation. In January 2000, GAF stopped paying its share of any settlement negotiated by CCR, including the settlements reached with plaintiffs. CCR sent settlement checks to plaintiffs for amounts smaller than the agreed settlement amount, with an explanation that the amount assigned to GAF was not forthcoming. The CCR has billed GAF Corporation for these amounts, but GAF has to date refused to pay such billings." In August 2000, the 33 plaintiffs represented in this appeal filed lawsuits against CCR and GAF alleging breach of contract. The lawsuits were consolidated in the trial court in May 2001. CCR filed a motion for summary judgment in September 2001, upon grounds that it negotiated the settlement agreements as an agent for fully disclosed principals--CCR members named by plaintiffs in their underlying personal injury suits--and as a matter of law is therefore not liable for a principal's alleged breach of those agreements. Following receipt of opposition and a hearing, the court granted the motion on October 25, 2001. For undisclosed reasons, the court did not enter judgment in favor of CCR until October 2003. Plaintiffs timely appealed the judgment to this court in December 2003, and completed briefing in May 2005. CCR and its former asbestos producer members are governed by a contract authorizing CCR to settle asbestos claims and allocate the costs of settlements. Under the producer agreement, settlement shares are "generally allocated to the member companies that were named as defendants in each case." CCR submitted evidence that the producer agreement has been a matter of public record, and its contents known to the asbestos plaintiffs' bar, for over 10 years. Plaintiffs' attorneys countered that CCR did not disclose the terms of the producer agreement to them when settling the cases, but did not affirmatively deny knowledge of the agreement from other sources. Judge Patricia Sepulveda, writing for the Court of Appeal, held that CCR could not be held liable for breach of the settlement agreements since it was not a party to the agreements and participated in the settlements solely as an agent acting on behalf of fully disclosed principals. Lisa Lurline Oberg, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, San Francisco, CA, William F. Sheehan, Goodwin Proctor LLP, Washington, DC, stood for defendant-respondent, Center for Claims Resolution. Headquartered in Wayne, NJ, G-I Holdings (formerly GAF Corporation) is one of the US's oldest sources for commercial and residential roofing materials, with more than 25 plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trains with Asbestos Insulation Pose Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- Three hundred railway employees walked off the job after it became known that some of the carriages on the new train link joining Thessaloniki with Istanbul contained asbestos, reports The Kathimerini, a Greek news publication. The Hellenic Railway Organization (OSE) recently purchased 21 carriages, which are intended for use on night travel for its Balkan routes, from the French National Railway Company (SNCF). Sources said that these carriages belonged to a lot withdrawn by SNCF more than five years ago when it was discovered that they contained asbestos. The carriages were reportedly withdrawn from France after being confirmed responsible for several deaths. As a result, the French company was forced to pay compensation to some employees after they developed lung cancer. It has also paid out pensions to widows whose spouses died after working to remove the cancer- causing material. SNCF had the asbestos removed from the trains in 2002 but it still remains in the carriage's insulation. OSE initially rejected purchasing the carriages in 2000. However, five years later, it decided to go ahead with the deal due to an increased need for night trains. Sources said that the latest recommendation made to OSE's board did not make any mention of the asbestos, however, an attached 500-page report pointed out the problem. The signed agreement also ensured that OSE waived any legal claims it may have against SNCF. The 21 carriages were purchased at a low price of EUR476,630. Responding to reports that the trains posed a health threat, the OSE simply said, "The carriages comply with all health and safety standards." The employees said they will return to work on the carriages only after samples taken from them have been cleared by independent laboratory tests. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Method to Detoxify Asbestos Removes Risks -------------------------------------------------------------- A cheaper and safer alternative to detoxify asbestos could eliminate the health hazards the mineral poses to people living near plants and building demolition sites, reports The Asahi Shimbun. Akira Kojima leads a research team, which has developed a method of reducing cancer-causing asbestos into harmless dust by using a catalyst linked to the destruction of the ozone layer. Mr. Kojima, a professor of materials engineering at Gunma National College of Technology, said the process uses chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. Through an energy-saving approach, byproducts such as calcium fluoride and calcium oxide, created through decomposed CFCs, are mixed with fibrous asbestos, and the mixture is heated to 700 degrees. The chemical reaction that arises converts the asbestos from fibrous material into harmless powder. Currently, breaking down asbestos is a costly process requiring a large amount of electricity to heat the material to about 1,000 degrees. Mr. Kojima has successfully patented his process, which uses cheaper fuels such as kerosene. He is now developing commercial applications. He expressed his intent to focus on recycling byproducts of detoxified asbestos as a material for tiles and concrete. This research breakthrough comes in light of recent reports that hundreds of Japanese workers involved in the manufacture of products using asbestos have died from mesothelioma and other respiratory diseases. Members of workers' families as well as people living near factories where asbestos was used have also died from such diseases. Concerns are rising about asbestos spreading through the air when old buildings containing the material are destroyed. Masafumi Kikuchi, a professor at Meiji University, said it is important to render asbestos harmless since even when buried, there is the possibility that it could later become exposed and cause health problems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Vows to Campaign Against Mesothelioma ---------------------------------------------------------------- The widow of a modern languages teacher who died of asbestos- related cancer mesothelioma expressed her determination to draw attention to the risks posed by the disease, reports The Derby Evening Telegraph. Alan Anthony died on May 27, 2005 at the age of 72. His wife Carol said she and her husband worked at a comprehensive school in southern England for many years. She believes Mr. Anthony was exposed in a particular part of the school in the 1970s where work was taking place and asbestos was disturbed. Mrs. Anthony warned that mesothelioma could affect thousands more in the years to come. Liz Darlison, consultant nurse with Mesothelioma UK, commented that although 85 to 90% of mesothelioma cases are attributed to exposure to asbestos, it is likely that the remaining 10% of cases were caused by asbestos but it is not known when the exposure occurred. Based in Leicester, Mesothelioma UK center provides impartial up-to-date information for patients diagnosed with mesothelioma and their caregivers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't Report Could Signal a Surge of Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Japanese firms could face an imminent lawsuit tide after a government report linked asbestos-related diseases to the deaths of at least 374 people in Japan, the Financial Times reports. The government report, based on an 89-company survey, follows a growing concern among the Japanese public that asbestos is not only a work-related hazard. Companies may also face claims from people living near factories. Kazuzo Nomura, a lawyer for asbestos victims, said the deaths suggest asbestos may develop into an environmental pollution problem and cannot be dismissed as a labor issue. The Japanese mesothelioma death rate rose to 878 in 2003, up from 500 in 1995. However, the 2003 deaths recognized as work- related was only 83, signifying a large number of victims could have suffered from environmental exposure, said Sugio Furuya, secretary-general of the nonprofit body, Ban Asbestos Network Japan. Japan used to be a leading asbestos importer before the substance was almost completely banned last year. In the west, asbestos litigation hit dozens of companies that prompted US politicians to set up a US$140 billion (EUR107 billion, GBP82 billion) Asbestos Compensation Fund. Mr. Furuya also pointed out that the continuing use of asbestos in developing Asian countries was a significant cause for concern. China, for example, is the world's second largest producer of asbestos and also imports the substance from Russia. It is unclear whether Japan will emulate the United States, where an increasing number of large lawsuits have burdened the business world. With the demolition of buildings containing asbestos scheduled to peak in Japan after 2010, the companies and the government are hurrying to take measures to prevent asbestos-linked diseases from expanding. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RI Court Denies GE's Motion to Dismiss Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Rhode Island on May 27, 2005 denied the motion to dismiss the asbestos-related case filed by Canadian residents against General Electric Company. Judge Alice Gibney presided over the suit styled, "Deborah L. Kedy, legal rep. for the Estate of Brian Scallion V. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al." Other defendants in the suit joined General Electric's motion to dismiss. These include The Anchor Packing Company; Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Successor by Merger to Garlock, Inc.; General Refractories Company; Grefco, Inc.; and Durametallic Corporation. General Electric moved to dismiss the cases under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, citing that public and private factors demonstrate that the claims should not be heard by the Court. The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case when a chosen forum, despite the existence of jurisdiction and venue, is so inconvenient that it would be unfair to the defendant to conduct its defense of the claim in that location. The plaintiffs are lifelong Canadian residents whose employment, exposure, injuries and treatment occurred in Canada. They are alleging both personal injury and wrongful death caused by exposure to products containing asbestos. As General Electric is a corporation authorized to do business in the state of Rhode Island, venue is proper in this Court. The defendants argued that this Court should adopt the doctrine of forum non conveniens and dismiss the case because the public and private factors of Gulf Oil Corp. weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. The plaintiffs contended that neither the Rhode Island Legislature nor the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ever recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens. They also argued that even if this Court were to adopt the doctrine, the public and private factors do not weigh in favor of the cases' dismissal. This Court held that as no litigation crisis exists in Rhode Island, no compelling reason would warrant the Court's adopting the doctrine of forum non conveniens at this time. The Court boasted that it has been individually responsible for case management of all asbestos-related litigation since January and that it has resolved numerous cases. In addition, it said that asbestos and asbestos-related litigation defies containment by boundaries. That plaintiffs and defendants get their claims and defenses heard as promptly as possible is essential to this docket. Only if and when the asbestos docket becomes too burdensome or inefficient will the motion to dismiss the case be revisited, said the Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. 2Q05 Profit Rises by 53% -------------------------------------------------------------- Chemical maker W.R. Grace & Co.'s second-quarter profit increased by 53 percent due to income from two insurance settlements and an 18.2 percent jump in sales, AP reports. Quarterly income of the Columbia, MD-based Company rose to US$32.7 million, or 49 cents per share, from US$21.3 million, or 32 cents per share, last year. Revenue increased to US$676.5 million from US$572.4 million during the year-ago period. Second-quarter results include about US$20 million of proceeds from the settlement of two disputes with insurance carriers. That was offset by higher interest expense to conform to rates in Grace's proposed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization and higher legal costs related to Chapter 11 and litigation related to coverage of past environmental remediation and asbestos-related costs. The Bankruptcy Court proceedings are currently focused on the estimation of Grace's asbestos-related liabilities, a process that Grace expects to extend into 2006. The company, which spent US$3.2 million in legal costs during the quarter, could get a reprieve if Congress passes proposed legislation to end asbestos liability lawsuits in exchange for a US$140 billion victims trust fund. The company has since stopped producing chemicals linked to asbestos. W.R. Grace is one of hundreds of companies currently facing criminal and civil lawsuits linked to the production of asbestos, which was once used to make insulation and later was found to cause cancer. W.R. Grace said both current and former employees continue to be involved as defendants in criminal proceedings regarding asbestos claims. Two employees were named as defendants in a civil suit filed during the quarter for the clean up of a former vermiculite-processing site in New Jersey. During the second quarter, W.R. Grace said its two biggest business segments posted sharp gains due to overall higher global demand. Davison Chemicals reported sales of US$358.9 million, up 20.5 percent from the year-ago period. Performance Chemicals revenue rose 15.7 percent to US$317.6 million. As of June 30, Grace said it had available liquidity of US$404.0 million cash, US$81.3 million net cash value of life insurance and unused credit under its debtor-in-possession facility of US$212.5 million. It added that it believes these sources of liquidity are sufficient to support its business operations, strategic initiatives and Chapter 11 proceedings for the foreseeable future. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SB 852 Challengers to Hold Forum Next Week --------------------------------------------------------------- Intending to strengthen opposition to the Asbestos Trust Fund bill, the Coalition for Asbestos Reform and other groups from across the political spectrum will hold a "Morning Newsmaker" news conference on Monday, July 25 at 10 a.m. in the Murrow Room of the National Press Club, 14th & F Streets NW, Washington, D.C. (13th floor). The Specter-Leahy bill, also known as S. 852, which would create a US$140 billion trust fund to compensate asbestos exposure cases, is one of the most controversial bills on the congressional calendar. As Congress prepares to vote on the measure, the Coalition for Asbestos Reform, representing small- to-medium-sized business owners, will join conservative and liberal groups with widely divergent interests to discuss why this particular issue has united them. The groups will discuss the impacts of the bill on the business community, exposed workers, insurers and others. This Newsmaker event will provide the opportunity to get the full span of opposition to S. 852 gathered in one room. As disclosed in the April 29, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the Coalition for Asbestos Reform asserted at a Senate hearing that the plan to make companies and insurers finance the fund amounted to an "unconstitutional taking of private property." However, bill supporters, including its author, Sen. Specter, insisted the bill could withstand a constitutional challenge. For more information, contact: Keith Alm, Fleishman-Hillard, 202-828-8857 or almk@fleishman.com. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Munich Re Boosts US Unit Reserves by $1.6B ---------------------------------------------------------------- Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance company, will boost reserves at its American Re unit by US$1.6 billion to cover casualty and asbestos policies in the U.S., ending a review of potential claims at the business. Meant to compensate for higher-than-expected court awards for asbestos claims, the increase will cut second-quarter profit by EUR400 million or US$480 million, Munich Re Chief Executive Nikolaus von Bomhard said. The company is sticking to its 2005 goal of achieving 12 percent returns on equity after tax. Investors welcomed the news as its shares posted the biggest gain in 10 months after Mr. von Bomhard said he's sure the reserve question at American Re has been "dealt with" following the increase. Munich Re has added about US$5 billion to American Re's reserves in the past five years, more than it paid to buy the Princeton, New Jersey-based Company in 1996. The stock rose EUR3.18, or 3.6 percent, to EUR92.48 in Frankfurt, valuing the Munich-based company at EUR21.2 billion. The shares have risen 2.2 percent this year, compared with an 8.4 percent increase in the 27-member Bloomberg Europe 500 Insurance Index. Insurers worldwide have underestimated liabilities to compensate victims exposed to asbestos by about US$14 billion, according to a study by credit-rating company A.M. Best Co. Reinsurers have struggled to cover U.S. casualty claims for policies written between 1997 and 2001, when insurers relied on rising stock markets to boost reserves and cover more policies at lower rates. American Re "is taking prompt account of current developments in its clients loss reporting," Munich Re said in a statement. The unit is also using "a particularly prudent approach to determining reserves for losses that have been incurred but not yet reported." The Company said that the reserves "are particularly for losses from liability and workers compensation business incurred between 1997 and mid-2002 and for asbestos and environmental claims." Putting an end to funding shortfalls at American Re is part of Mr. von Bomhard's strategy of restoring Munich Re's credit rating and improving profitability. American Re's net income more than halved last year after it boosted reserves by US$482 million. The unit will probably have a full-year loss in 2005, Munich Re's chief financial officer, Joerg Schneider, said, without predicting an amount. Standard & Poor's, which has cut Munich Re's credit rating four levels in the past 2 1/2 years to A+, said today it revised the outlook on its rating on American Re to "developing" from "negative." It reiterated its "stable" outlook for Munich Re. Fitch Rating downgraded Munich Re's financial strength rating to AA- from AA with a "stable" outlook, citing the impact of the reserve increases on the company's earnings. Munich Re has also been shedding stakes in German companies, and last week sold EUR1.1 billion of shares in Allianz AG. The company expects to book a gain of EUR560 million in the third quarter from the sale, Mr. Schneider said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt Urges Industry for Voluntary Ban ---------------------------------------------------------------- Japan government agencies plan to ask 18 industry groups to totally eliminate the use of asbestos in the country and to substitute it with a safer material, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports. The Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry and the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry are considering support measures, such as shouldering part of the replacement costs, to help companies replace asbestos with another material. The ministries will hold an emergency meeting this month with the 18 groups, which include the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, the Japan Iron and Steel Federation and the Glass Fibre Association of Japan, to urge them to stop using all kinds of asbestos. The use of blue and brown asbestos, the more dangerous forms of asbestos, was banned in Japan in 1995. But the ban on the use of white asbestos was delayed until October 2004. Even after that, the use of white asbestos, which is extremely resistant to fire and acids, is allowed in limited areas as exceptions, such as for packing in pipe connectors at power stations. Under the Industrial Safety and Health Law, the use of asbestos will be completely banned by 2008. But due to the increase in the number of illnesses attributed to asbestos, the ministries decided to encourage companies to speed up voluntary actions to refrain from using the material. According to the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, 374 employees at 27 out of 89 building material manufacturers and related companies have died from health problems caused by asbestos. As revealed on July 15, 2005 in last Friday's edition of the Class Action Reporter, asbestos imports are expected to fall as the manufacturing and other industries develop replacements to the toxic material. Although the government officially banned the shipment or production of asbestos only last year, it continues to be used to make gaskets for machinery, insulating plates for switchboards, seals for chemical plants and industrial rope. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Premier Drops Local Insulation Concerns ---------------------------------------------------------------- New South Wales Premier Bob Carr dismissed loose fiber asbestos insulation concerns in the South Coast and refused to initiate an inquiry into associated public health issues, the Bay Post Moruya Examiner reports. Andrew Constance, the Liberal member for Bega, called for a public health warning issuance and the creation of a South East Asbestos Taskforce after revelations earlier this year that a lethal form of asbestos was used in home insulation in the 1960s and 1970s. Twenty years ago, the Federal and ACT Governments removed asbestos fill from homes in Canberra but ignored affected homes in Batemans Bay, Queanbeyan and possibly elsewhere throughout South East NSW. In a letter to Mr. Constance, Mr. Carr stated that NSW Health investigated the public health issues associated with asbestos insulation usage in the 1990s and would not consider the issue again. "Generally these are matters that are the responsibility of the homeowner," Mr. Carr added. "The government remains focused, however, on improving public awareness of issues relating to asbestos in the home, particularly for homeowners and builders undertaking renovations." Mr. Constance also expressed concerns about the government's decision to stop asbestos insulation testing in the past two months after years of testing by the Public Health Unit within Greater Southern Area Health Service. "I am sure Health Minister (Morris) Iemma will be able to confirm that the health service was accredited and qualified for undertaking such testing and the government for the assessments provided the appropriate facilities and testing sites," Mr. Constance said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek to Propose USG's Ch. 11 Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for asbestos claimants objected to USG Corp.'s request for extension to file a Chapter 11 plan and instead asked the Court to allow them to propose a plan on how the value in a reorganized USG will be handed out, Dow Jones reports. Embattled in bankruptcy for more than four years, Chicago, IL- based USG has been under massive liabilities stemming from people alleging injury from exposure to asbestos products. USG goes before a court August 29 to ask for its eighth extension of the time during which it alone is entitled to propose a Chapter 11 plan. A committee that represents the interests of stockholders in the Chapter 11 case has been empanelled, a sign that there could be sufficient value in the company to leave shareholders with an equity stake. Shareholders get nothing in bankruptcy until creditors have been paid in full. The Chapter 11 plan that USG's asbestos creditors want to propose would allocate the Company's cash, notes and future stock issues to asbestos claims and unsecured creditors. Distributions would start as soon as a federal court sets a number on USG's asbestos liabilities and as soon as the bankruptcy court determines which USG units are accountable for the asbestos claims. Under the plan that asbestos claimants suggest, anything left would go to the shareholders. The Company contended only its U.S. Gypsum Co. unit should pay and that other divisions be excluded from contributing into the trust that would be set up under a Chapter 11 plan for asbestos claimants. USG wants to spell out its Chapter 11 plan after the conclusion of what are expected to be prolonged federal court asbestos estimation proceedings. However, asbestos creditors say that's an unreasonable delay and that USG is making no progress in its attempt to get out of Chapter 11. The official committee of unsecured creditors, which represents USG's commercial creditors, said it would be "reasonable and practical" to hold up the filing of a plan for an additional six months. USG is requesting for until December 31 to file a plan. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prosecutors Probe 3 Law Firms Over Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Federal prosecutors are looking into claims of improper conduct concerning asbestos litigation at three law firms, The New York Times reports. G-1 Holdings, formerly GAF Corp., a roofing materials maker, hired investigative firm Kroll Inc. to collect evidence in its three-year-old civil lawsuit against Baron & Budd of Dallas; Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole of Mount Pleasant, S.C.; and Weitz & Luxenberg of New York. In extensive interviews Kroll collected from former employees of the three law firms, employees said potential claimants were coached and said there were efforts to influence doctors' diagnoses. In response to a subpoena, Kroll investigators turned over their documents to prosecutors last month. The documents, which surfaced in the bankruptcy case of G-1 Holdings, showed that lawyers for G-1 have met with prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan in recent months. Lawyers said at least one insurance company has also received a subpoena. The criminal investigation could have broad implications for the civil justice system that compensates victims of personal injuries. If it proceeds to an actual case, it could also force some lawyers who file what are known as mass tort claims to change their tactics. Asbestos litigation has been an extremely costly problem for companies and a hugely profitable business for plaintiffs' lawyers. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan is also pursuing an investigation into thousands of claims filed on behalf of people who said they had been injured by exposure to silica, another dangerous material. Advocates of changes to the civil justice system will almost certainly seize on the investigation. Plaintiff's lawyers said they worried that any such changes might make it harder for legitimate asbestos victims to recover damages. The spreading investigation could result to a new wave of litigation over claims that were already paid. People who are genuinely sick, and who recovered less money than they might have if so much of the asbestos compensation funds had not been used to pay fraudulent claims, could sue the firms that filed those false claims. G-1 was driven to seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001 as a result of about 150,000 asbestos claims. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Covered by Insurance Rises 53.7% ------------------------------------------------------------- Compared to the previous year, the number of Japanese workers with asbestos-linked diseases qualified for industrial accident compensation rose to 186 in fiscal 2004 representing a 53.7% increase, said Senior Vice Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Hiroyoshi Nishi. In a meeting of the House of Representatives Committee on Health, Welfare and Labor, Mr. Nishi said that 849 people were qualified to receive benefits for asbestos-linked illness under the workers' accident compensation insurance by fiscal 2004. Of the 849, 354 suffered from lung cancer and 495 had asbestos- related cancer mesothelioma, Kyodo News reports. For fiscal 2004, the 186 workers comprised 58 lung cancer patients and 128 mesothelioma sufferers. When asked if the government seeks to recognize health hazards from asbestos exposure to be eligible for compensation as an illness caused by pollution, Senior Vice Environment Minister Hiroshi Takano said that at the moment, information is being gathered via prefectural governments. "It is necessary to analyze research results and then determine if they conform to the objectives of the pollution health hazard compensation law," added Mr. Takano. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't Fails to Warn Against Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- Although the Japanese government was aware from 1976 of the health risks asbestos posed to workers and their families, including residents nearby the plants, it failed to introduce effective countermeasures, The Mainichi reports. As asbestos-related deaths continue to be reported, the government is likely to face criticism over its inaction. In 1976, the former Ministry of Labor sent notices dated May 22, 1976 to labor standards offices across the nation. Titled, "Regarding promotion of measures to prevent health damage from asbestos particles," the notice gave details on regulations for the prevention of health risks from specified chemicals that were revised in September 1975. Attached to the notices was data from Britain that proved that even relatives and nearby residents were at risk. The data showed that of 83 British hospital patients who were diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in the 50 years up until 1965, nine were relatives of workers at factories handling asbestos, and 11 were people living near the factories. However, after issuing the notices, the government did not introduce any illness prevention measures for those at risk. In a news conference earlier this week, Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Shoichi Nakagawa said that the government's delay in enforcing regulations to control asbestos use could not be refuted, but added that the government did not act illegally or negligently at the time. Officials at the Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare confirmed that the notice had been sent, but said they were not able to confirm the contents of the notice, because the person in charge was not available. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Legislation to Reach Senate Floor on Sept. -------------------------------------------------------------- The legislation's co-author confirmed that the Asbestos Compensation Bill is not expected to come up on the Senate floor before the August recess, Reuters reports. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said that majority leader Sen. Bill Frist postponed bringing the measure to the floor. Sen. Specter, a Pennsylvanian Republican, suggested it was a matter of scheduling, and made no reference to criticisms of the bill that have been raised by both parties. The Senate begins its month-long August recess at the end of next week. Asbestos was widely used for fireproofing and insulation until the 1970s. Its fibers are linked to cancer and other diseases. Injury claims have bankrupted dozens of companies. The asbestos bill, which Specter co-sponsored with Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy, would halt asbestos injury suits and pay the claims from a US$140 billion fund financed by defendant companies and insurers instead. While arguments from both sides continue to plague the bill, the fact that those concerns remain dispels any thoughts that the bill could be quickly debated on the Senate floor. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Reveals Asbestos in 90 Kansai Schools ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 90 schools in Japan's Kansai region still have asbestos- coated building parts and ceilings, in a survey conducted by The Yomiuri Shimbun. No damage to health has been reported however. In most schools, new ceilings are fitted beneath the asbestos- lined ceilings to prevent spread of the harmful substance but some schools, for financial reasons, failed to take measures to counteract the possible risks. From the hearing that the Yomiuri Shimbun conducted with education boards in six Kansai prefectures, at least 30 public high schools in Osaka Prefecture came out to still have facilities coated with asbestos. The Osaka Prefectural Board of Education coated the asbestos ceilings of 21 schools to prevent scattering, but did not take measures in nine other schools where asbestos-lined parts are covered. Eleven primary and middle schools and a kindergarten in Osaka, and schools in Sakai, Suita and Neyagawa also appeared to contain asbestos. In Hyogo Prefecture, asbestos is in six Kobe primary and middle schools and 29 primary, middle and high schools in Itami, Kawanishi, Amagasaki and Nishinomiya. The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology intends to conduct another probe of prefectural education boards nationwide to check schools for asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Agency Probes Dumping at Housing Site ------------------------------------------------------------- Prompted by documentary evidence supplied by locals, the Environment Agency is continuing to investigate the dumping of tons of deadly asbestos on a 14-acre Brixham site intended for the location of 191 houses. Alan Burrows, of the Environment Agency, said that after the agency establishes the identity of the person responsible, it would be prepared to prosecute for the criminal offense committed. Torbay Council, which gave permission for the development of the 14-acre site last December, admitted in a letter sent last week to one of the residents, that "a significant amount of buried asbestos has been found" and that more "may well be" found as investigations continue. The council had previously been adamant in asserting that the site posed no health threat and that asbestos contamination was minimal. Pontins set up the area as a holiday camp in 1938 when the dangers of asbestos as insulation were not recognized. By 1989, Pontins abandoned the site after fire gutted it down and eventually sold it in May of that year. For many years, it was also used as a children's playground. The council changed the local planning laws to enable housing development after a developer purchased the site. Five years ago, the Health and Safety Executive investigated the camp when contractors were removing some of the buildings. After it discovered that a wide area had been contaminated, it advised the Council to consider taking action under public safety legislation to prevent children from being exposed to the material. Aside from the asbestos, the area is also a potential landfill gas risk. The Environment Agency warned the council in August 2004 that any developer should check the area because a disused household rubbish tip is situated a few hundred meters from site's edge. The planning consent for the site required a "remediation statement" detailing how any residual asbestos was to be removed before work began. However, the council has still not approved this document even though demolition work has continued for several months. ASBESTOS ALERT: Former Employee Files Lawsuit V. EMI Group PLC -------------------------------------------------------------- A former glassblower filed a suit against record company EMI Group Plc for allegedly exposing him to asbestos during his employment, The Shropshire Star reports. Henry Lee, aged 64, of Chelmick Drive, Church Stretton, filed a writ in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court against the Company, claiming damages of between GBP150,000 and GBP250,000. He asserted that his pain, injury, loss and damage were caused by the Company's negligence and breach of statutory duty. According to the writ, Mr. Lee was diagnosed in November 2004 with asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma and was predicted to have a limited life expectancy of less than a year. He is accusing the company of failing to protect him from the health dangers of exposure to the material. Mr. Lee worked for EMI Group at its first factory in Hayes, Middlesex from September 1956 to September 1991. For the first 10 months he was employed as a trainee glassblower when rolls of asbestos tape were used in the workshop. He claimed that this activity liberated asbestos dust into the atmosphere. Citing the exposure as the culprit, Mr. Lee now claims to suffer from breathlessness and pleural plaques. The writ states there would be continued deterioration in his condition "probably with worsening pain, increasing breathlessness and debility." He stated that in the course of his terminal illness, he will need increasing levels of assistance and constant nursing care. Dylan Jones, spokesman for EMI Group, said that the company could not make any comment to an ongoing case. Company Profile: EMI Group Plc 27 Wrights Ln. London W8 5SW, United Kingdom Phone: +44-20-7795-7000 Fax: +44-20-7795-7296 http://www.emigroup.com/ Fiscal Year-End : March 2004 Sales (mil.) : US$3,872.0 1-Year Sales Growth : 13.1% 2004 Net Income (mil.) : (US$130.7) 2004 Employees : 7,996 1-Year Employee Growth : (1.1%) Description: Headquartered in London, UK, EMI Group Plc is the third largest record company in terms of worldwide sales. In addition to recorded music, it is also the world's largest music publishing business. It has operations in more than 50 countries. ASBESTOS ALERT: DEP Halts NY Bldg Project for Disposal Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- The Department of Environmental Protection put a halt to the condo project at the former Board of Education Building in Brooklyn after its investigation revealed violations of asbestos disposal regulations. DEP spokesman Ian Michaels said that demolition workers were found to have removed asbestos-containing debris from the building. Nearly all of the 15 samples taken showed dangerous levels of asbestos Brooklyn developer David Walentas faces stiff fines and must pay for a proper asbestos removal before the project can resume. Documents filed with the Buildings Department indicated the company, Two Trees Management, was aware of asbestos at the site, Mr. Michaels said. K&R Demo Corp. workers, who weren't wearing protective gear, were seen dumping contaminated debris from 36 bins into a truck days before the project was halted. Clouds of white dust from the illegal operation spewed onto nearby buildings, alarming its occupants to the possible health risk. Edison Severino, manager of Local 78, the asbestos, lead, and hazardous waste handlers union, said that Mr. Walentas should be hit with the highest fines possible for showing disregard to the safety of the workers and the public for the purpose of saving money. In proper asbestos removal, workers wear protective gear, the site is closed off and monitored, and the debris is carefully disposed of, according to experts. ASBESTOS ALERT: GA Court Favors Prison Officers in Inmate's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on July 6, 2005 dismissed the case against the defendants, prison authorities who allegedly knowingly exposed an inmate to cancer- causing asbestos. U.S. Magistrate Claude Judge Hicks presided over the case styled, "John Ed Boldin v. Jim Wetherington, et al.," with Case No. 5:03-CV-308 (CWH). Kevin T. Brown and Mary Elizabeth Hand, of Macon, GA, represented the defendants. John Ed Boldin, who represented himself in this case, is an inmate in the custody of the State of Georgia. He sued defendants Jim Wetherington, Jimmy Sikes, Thalrone Williams, Cheryl Chapman, Artie Braddock, Bob Davis, Lonnie Durden, Don Hayslip, and David B. Harrison alleging that they violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Rivers State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia. Mr. Boldin claimed that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs from October 2001 to March 2003 when they knowingly allowed him to be exposed to extremely high levels of friable asbestos while performing repair work at the prison. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted Mr. Boldin's deposition and their discovery responses. They stated that the deposition and discovery responses indicated that his Eighth Amendment rights have not been violated by exposure to asbestos. Further, by Mr. Boldin's own admission, he has suffered no medical problems as a result of exposure to asbestos at Rivers but has had nightmares about health problems related to asbestos exposure. The evidence indicated that the Georgia Department of Corrections did not know that Rivers contained asbestos until late 2002. In February 2003, the DOC began contracting with third parties to remove the asbestos from Rivers in various locations including pipe chases, tunnels and crawl spaces. Prior to the removal of the asbestos, precautions were taken for inmate workers who worked in areas that contained asbestos. This included not allowing inmates to work in areas that were suspected to contain asbestos. In the court's view, Mr. Boldin failed to establish his case under the Eighth Amendment. It stated that Mr. Boldin submitted no evidence to show that he was exposed to unreasonably high levels of asbestos after the problem was detected, and does not present any evidence of actual physical injury. Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. ASBESTOS ALERT: NY Court Affirms Ruling V. Appalachian Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of the Supreme Court of New York on June 14, 2005 affirmed a ruling in favor of Appalachian Insurance Company that individual claims against insured to recover for asbestos exposure could not be aggregated in determining excess insurers' duty to defend or indemnify. Judges David Saxe, George Marlow, Joseph Sullivan, Milton Williams, and Luis Gonzalez evaluated the case. On December 23, 2003, the Supreme Court, New York County, presided by Judge Ira Gammerman, declared that certain of the excess insurers are not obligated to defend or indemnify the insured with respect to any single claim that does not exceed US$5 million. The court assessed that availability of excess coverage is triggered by an "occurrence," that results in personal injury, sickness, disease or death. An individual claimant's exposure to asbestos to the turbines manufactured by General Electric, rather than earlier events, creates potential future injury, i.e., the insured's design, manufacture and sale of the turbines without warnings about asbestos. Accordingly, individual claims could not be aggregated. The NY Court considered General Electric's earlier arguments insufficient. E. Leo Milonas, David G. Keyco, Frederick A. Brodie, and Laura L. Smith of Pillsbury, Winthrop LLP, New York; Evan A. Davis and Goldie Weixel of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, New York; and Gita F. Rothschild and Nicholas Gimbel of McCarter & English, LLP, New York represented General Electric Company, Appellant. Patrick J. Dwyer of Smith, Stratton, Wise, Heher & Brennan, LLP, New York, Scott M. Seaman and Jason R. Schulze of Meckler, Bulger & Tilson, LLP, Chicago, IL represented Appalachian Insurance Company, Respondent. Michael J. Balch of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York represented North Star Reinsurance Corporation, Respondent. Brian R. Ade of Rivkin Radler, LLP, Summit, NJ represented Federal Insurance Company, Respondent. Dylan C. Braverman of Morrison, Mahoney & Miller, LLP, New York represented Swiss Reinsurance Company, Respondent. Richard A. Fogel of Law Office Richard A. Fogel, P.C., Islip, NY represented Dairyland Insurance Company, Respondent. Alexander H. Gillespie of Bonner, Kiernan, Trebach & Crociata, Parsippany, NJ represented Riunione Adriatica DiSicurta and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Respondents. Elizabeth M. DeCristofaro and Alfred L. D'Isernia of Ford, Marrin, Esposito, Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP, New York represented Continental Casualty Company, Continental Insurance Company (as successor in interest to certain alleged Harbor Insurance Company policies), and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York and Pacific Insurance Company, Respondents. Company Profile: Appalachian Insurance Company Allendale Park P.O. Box 7500 Johnston, RI 02919-0500 Phone: (401)-275-3000 ASBESTOS ALERT: DE Court Remands Claimant's Petition V. 2 Firms --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Delaware on May 26, 2005 reversed and remanded an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board, which dismissed a claimant's petition for workers' compensation benefits based on the statute of limitations. Judge John E. Babiarz Jr. wrote the decision for the case tagged, "Larry Marshall V. Brand Insulation and Catalytic Incorporated," with Case No. Civ.A.04A-08-005-JEB. On July 12, 2002, Mr. Marshall filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits against numerous employers alleging that he had contracted asbestosis and kidney cancer due to asbestos exposure in his workplace. Because the parties were unable to agree to a hearing date, they entered into a stipulation which provided that Mr. Marshall would withdraw his petition and refile it within 60 days, and that the original filing date of July 12, 2002 would toll the statute of limitations. He made a timely refiling, naming only Brand Insulation and Catalytic Inc., as employers, and the Board held a hearing in May 2004. At the conclusion of the case, counsel for the employers moved to dismiss the petition on grounds that the suit was time-barred under the statute of limitations and the notice provisions for occupational diseases. Following post-hearing briefing, the Board granted the employers' motion to dismiss, finding that the claimant did not file his petition within the statute of limitations for workers' compensation benefits. The Board did not address the notice issue. Mr. Marshall filed a timely appeal to this Court, challenging the dismissal, as well as evidentiary rulings made by the Board during the hearing. The parties agree that the first issue to be addressed is the date upon which the statute of limitations was tolled. They also agree that the Board erred in finding that the statute was tolled as of January 7, 2004, the date upon which the claimant refiled his petition. The record shows that all parties entered into a stipulation which provided that the original filing date of July 12, 2002 would toll the statute of limitations. The Court concluded that the board erred in determining the date on which the statute of limitations was tolled and that the case must be remanded. The Court instructed the Board on remand to adopt July 12, 2002, as the operative date for purposes of the statute of limitations. Richard T. Wilson, Wilmington, Delaware, stood for Larry Marshall. Richard P.S. Hannum, Wilmington, Delaware, represented Brand Insulation while Nancy Chrissinger-Cobb, Wilmington, Delaware, stood for Catalytic Incorporated. ASBESTOS ALERT: Hexion's Bakelite Incurs Liability for Cleanups --------------------------------------------------------------- Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. revealed in its latest filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that thermosetting resins producer Bakelite, which it acquired from Rutgers AG, has responsibilities for environmental cleanup under various state, local and federal laws in the countries in which it operates. As a result of Bakelite's operations that involve the use, handling, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, it has recorded liabilities of EUR288,000 and EUR760,000 at December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, for all probable and estimable environmental remediation activities. These accruals primarily represent two cases at the Solbiate, Italy site where remediation was performed for asbestos- containing materials identified on site and where remediation was assessed by local authorities for cumene contamination discovered. The removal of asbestos-containing materials for insulation on pipelines began in 2003 and was finalized in August 2004. This removal was not required under local law but was carried out voluntarily. In Italy, there have been several civil law claims filed against Bakelite related to asbestos-containing materials that were used in production. Italian regulations provide a general fund to pay damages related to asbestos claims by employees, former employees or surviving family members. The surviving family members of two former employees have initiated legal claims against Bakelite, in addition to their claim against the general fund. It is currently unclear whether a claim against Bakelite will be accepted by the Court, or to what damages Bakelite may be exposed. Furthermore, there is another asbestos related employee claim against the Spanish subsidiary. For all of the asbestos related claims, management has assessed the outcome of the litigation to be favorable, and therefore no accrual has been recorded by Bakelite. Company Profile: Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (NYSE: HXN Proposed) 180 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-225-4000 http://www.bordenchem.com/ Fiscal Year-End : December 2004 Sales (mil.) : US$2,019.0 1-Year Sales Growth : 158.2% 2004 Net Income (mil.) : (US$114.0) 2004 Employees : 6,900 Description: Formed in 2005, Hexion Specialty Chemicals unites the former Borden Chemical, Resolution Performance Products, Resolution Specialty Materials, and Bakelite. The new company is the world's largest thermosetting resins maker. It also manufactures formaldehyde and other forest product resins, epoxy resins, and raw materials for coating and sinks. New Securities Fraud Cases AVAYA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files ERISA Class Action Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed an ERISA class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Avaya, Inc. Savings Plan, the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for Salaried Employees, and the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for the Variable Workforce (collectively, the "Plans") established by Avaya Inc. ("Avaya" or the "Company") (NYSE: AV), between October 5, 2004, through the present (the "Class Period"), and whose accounts included investments in Avaya Stock, against Defendant Avaya, certain officers and directors of the Company who are members of the Company's Compensation Committee, Finance Committee, and other unnamed members of the Company's other benefits related committees. The case name is Edgar v. Avaya Inc., et al. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to participants and beneficiaries of the Plans. The Defendants failed to act in the interests of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries and with reasonable care, skill, or diligence in offering Avaya Stock as an investment option, purchasing Avaya Stock for the Plans, holding Avaya stock in the Plans, monitoring the Plans' investment in Avaya Stock, and communicating information concerning Avaya's financial performance to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries. The Complaint further alleges that Avaya Stock was an inappropriate investment in the Plans as Avaya represented to the investment community that it was a highly successful communications network company, while concealing, (1) that its new go-to-market model in the United States, created disruption affecting its U.S. sales, and (2) as opposed to the Company's rosy financial projections, there was softness in the U.S. technology market further affecting U.S. sales, and (3) that the costs of its Tenovis GmbH & Co. KG ("Tenovis") acquisition far exceeded projections. For more details, contact Mark C. Rifkin, Esq., Matthew M. Guiney, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Phone: 1-800-575-0735 or +1-212-545-4600, Web site: classmember@whafh.com. MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Majesco Entertainment Company (NASDAQ: COOL) between December 8, 2004 and July 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against defendant Majesco Entertainment Company and one or more of its officers. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036 E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of Majesco Entertainment Co. (Nasdaq: COOL) ("Majesco" or the "Company") during the period December 8, 2004 and July 12, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Majesco, a producer of video games, and its former CEO, Carl Yankowski, and its former CFO, Jan E. Chasen ("Defendants"), with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the diversification of Majesco's product line and stated that the Company's revenue and income would significantly increase in fiscal year 2005. Unbeknownst to investors, Majesco's claimed increase in revenue and income was unreasonable because it would disproportionately depend on the success of just one of its video games, and on the Company's continued improper accounting for development costs. The truth began to emerge on July 12, 2005, when Majesco issued a press release after the market closed announcing a dramatic reduction in its anticipated 2005 results. Rather than the expected net revenues of $175-$185 million and income of $16-$18 million, the Company now stated it expected a loss of $16-$19 million on revenues that would be at least $50 million lower than previously announced. Majesco also announced that, after less than a year, Yankowski had resigned as CEO and Chasen had been removed as CFO. On this news, the price of Majesco stock dropped drastically, falling 48%, from $6.89 per share on July 12, 2005 to $3.56 per share on July 13, 2005. For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C. Shah, Esq. of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone: +1-866-540-5505 or +1-877-891-9880, E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com. MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of Majesco Entertainment Company (f/k/a Majesco Holdings Inc.) ("Majesco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: COOL) between December 8, 2004 and July 12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Majesco, Carl J. Yankowski, Morris Sutton, Jesse Sutton, and Jan E. Chason with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company's transition from a narrow focused gadget video game company to a diversified video game company with premium frontline publishing was off track; (2) that the Company, contrary to its express representations, was experiencing generally weak consumer demand and had high retail inventory; (3) that the Company had to take write-downs of receivables as a result of a recent bankruptcy of one of its customers; (4) that the Company's relationships with retailers were weak; (5) that the launch of the Company's Game Boy Advance products had been delayed; and (6) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's growth and progress lacked in any reasonable basis when made. On July 12, 2005, Majesco drastically lowered its guidance for its fiscal year 2005. Additionally, the Company announced that its Chief Executive Officer, Carl Yankowski, had resigned his position. This news shocked the market. Shares of Majesco fell $3.33 per share, or 48.33 percent, on unusually high volume, on July 13, 2005, to close at $3.56 per share. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. RAMP CORPORATION: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed on July 19, 2005 on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Ramp Corporation ("Ramp" or the "Company") (OTC: RCOCQ) during the period from April 14, 2004 to May 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, entitled Silverlake Holdings, Inc. v. Andrew Brown, et al., is pending before the Honorable Denise Cote in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 05 CV 6521 (DC). It names as defendants, Andrew Brown, who was the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chairman of the Board and President until May 22, 2005 when he resigned as Chairman and was suspended as President and CEO; Ron Munkittrick, who has been Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Ramp since October 12, 2004; Darryl R. Cohen, who was CEO and Chairman of the Board of Ramp at the start of the Class Period until April 25, 2004; Mitchell Cohen, who was CFO of Ramp from the start of the Class Period until September 8, 2004; and BDO Seidman LLP ("Seidman"), an accounting firm, which performed audits for the Company for the years ended December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading representations and omissions in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that on May 21, 2005, Seidman resigned as the Company's auditor and advised Ramp that the Company's 2003 and 2004 audit reports were unreliable. The complaint further alleges that as a result of such information, Ramp stated that is would not file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 on time, which led to its defaulting on certain debentures. It is also alleged in the complaint that Defendant Brown resigned and was suspended on May 22, 2005 because he may have violated Company policies or the law when he received an unspecified amount of cash as a gift in December 2003. The complaint alleges that the Company filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy laws on June 2, 2005, and that the American Stock Exchange notified it on June 6, 2005 that it was delisting the Company's stock. It is alleged that when Seidman announced that it was resigning and that Ramp's financial statements were unreliable, trading in the Company's stock was halted on May 23, 2005. At the time, Ramp's stock was trading at $1.25 per share. When the Company's stock began trading again, it decreased in price to $0.10 per share. For more details, contact Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. or Lawrence D. Levit, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail: Jabraham@aftlaw.com or Llevit@aftlaw.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, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 2005. 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 * * *