/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060707.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 134 Headlines ACCREDITED HOME: Suit Over Mortgage Loans Fees Remains Pending ALBERTSONS INC: EEOC Files Colo. Racial, Ethnic Harassment Suit AMERICAN HOME: Mortgage Loan Fees Suit in Ill. Remains Pending BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls ATVs to Repair Rear Brake BRADY FARMS: Settles Labor Lawsuit Filed by Migrant Workers CALPINE CORP: Appeal on Calif. ERISA Suit's Dismissal to Proceed CALPINE CORP: Hawaii Fund Appeals Extension of Automatic Stay CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Short-Selling Transactions HEAT & GLO: Recalls Twilight Gas Fireplaces for Fire Hazard INDIANA: August Hearing Set in Medicaid Lawsuit Settlement KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11 LOUISIANA: Suit Filed Over Demolition of Housing Complexes MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Calif. MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Consumers' Suit Remanded to State Court MONACO COACH: Recalls Hundreds of Motor Home Workhorse Chassis MSG/NUCLEOTIDES SETTLEMENT: $39.775M Windfall Awaits Plaintiffs NEW MEXICO: Santa Fe County Jail Settles Strip Search Lawsuit NEW YORK: NYLAG Files Suit in N.Y. Over USCIS Processing Delays ORKIN INC: Appeals Court Dismisses "Butland" Lawsuit in Fla. PHILIPPINES: Marcos Victims Payout Depends on Available Funding RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25 SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Remands Consumer Suit Back to Calif. SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Judge Okays Continental Forge Settlement SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissed Pa. Stock Suit SUPERIOR FORESTRY: Migrant Workers' Suit Denied Class Status TRAVEL COMPANIES: New Mexico City Sues Online Travel Agents UNION PACIFIC: Workers File Suit Over Personal Data Theft in Ia. UNION PACIFIC: Tex. Lawyer Asks Class Status for Derailment Suit UNITED KINGDOM: Lloyd's Investors Commence GBP1B Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Indictment Spurs Transparency Act Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits v. Flowserve Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Faces Suits in Miss. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Officials Get 4T Payout Applications ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Notes 257 Defendants in 4 Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Dumps UCC's Claims v. Conwed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DaimlerChrysler Holds 28,000 Claims in 4Q05 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Asks Court to Estimate Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Group Seeks to Change ASARCO Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning to Agree on Royal Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Says Locals Deserve Payments ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Payout for Mother's Death Sought in Japan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Wins Payout for Lung-Cancer Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun, GM Clash Over Memo as Proof ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Considers Selling Off ABB Lummus Global ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian EPA to Monitor College Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Bans Use of Alimta for Asbestos Cancer ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAT, Allianz Australia Settle Cancer Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reduces Liabilities by $900Mil in Sale ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court, Cape Approve GBP40M Fund for Victims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widows to Gain After Reversal of Ruling New Securities Fraud Cases KLA-TENCOR: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. ********* ACCREDITED HOME: Suit Over Mortgage Loans Fees Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action filed against Accredited Home Lenders Inc. over residential mortgage loans fees has stopped moving after Madison County, Illinois Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron denied in December the company's motion to reconsider a class certification, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. In December 2002, the company was served with a complaint and motion for class certification in the suit "Wratchford et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc." The case was brought in Madison County, Illinois under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the consumer protection statutes of the other states in which the company does business and the common law of unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that the company has a practice of misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees it pays to third parties in connection with the residential mortgage loans that it funds. Plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting of others similarly situated, that is, those who paid the company to pay, or reimburse the company's payments of, third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund for the difference between what they paid and what was actually paid to the third party. Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages on behalf of themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court may grant. On Jan. 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally certifying: -- a class of Illinois residents with respect to the alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act who, since Nov. 19, 1997, paid money to Accredited Home for third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund of the difference between the amount they paid to Accredited Home and the amount Accredited Home paid to the third party; and -- a nationwide class of claimants with respect to an unjust enrichment cause of action included in the original complaint who, since Nov. 19, 1997 paid money to Accredited Home for third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund of the difference between the amount they paid Accredited Home and the amount AHL paid the third party. The court conditioned its order limiting the statutory consumer fraud act claims to claimants in the state of Illinois on the outcome of a case pending before the Illinois Supreme Court in which one of the issues is the propriety of certifying a nationwide class based on the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. According to Accredited Home's May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006, the company intended to petition the Illinois Supreme Court for a supervisory order reversing the lower court's class certification decision -- the lower court having denied the company's motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting class certification and the court's denial of the company's request for leave to take an interlocutory appeal of such order. A June 1 report by The Madison St. Clair Record said nothing has happened in the case since. ALBERTSONS INC: EEOC Files Colo. Racial, Ethnic Harassment Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Albertson's Inc. over a decade-long pattern of harassment at a suburban Denver distribution center, the cbs5.com reports. In the lawsuit, EEOC claims that it traced harassment at the Aurora center as far back as 1995, which ranged from racist graffiti on bathroom fixtures to threats of violence against Hispanic and black employees. The EEOC allege that the grocery chain's managers failed to take adequate action to end what the agency described as a hostile work environment. The suit alleges that representatives of Albertsons human resources department failed to act when a black employee accused a white manager of threatening him with physical violence. The EEOC is seeking remuneration for employees for emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience. It is also seeking for Albertsons' eradication of practices that created the hostile work environment. In a statement, the company said it will investigate the allegations and possibly take corrective and disciplinary action. The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Albertson's Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01273-WYD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Wiley Y. Daniel. Representing the plaintiffs are Rita Byrnes Kittle, Kim Rene Rogers and Nancy A. Weeks all of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-Colorado, 303 East 17th Avenue, #510 Denver, CO 80203, Phone: 303-866-1347 or 303-866-1361 or 303- 866-1947, Fax: 303-866-1375, E-mail: rita.kittle@eeoc.gov or kim.rogers@eeoc.gov or nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov. AMERICAN HOME: Mortgage Loan Fees Suit in Ill. Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action over residential mortgage loan fees filed against American Home Loans has stopped moving after plaintiffs replied to defendant's motion to decertify the suit, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The suit was filed by Alton, Illinois attorney Emert Wyss on behalf of Paul Wratchford and Ladonna Wratchford, who closed a mortgage at Centerre Title. The Wratchfords claim that American Home had kept part of a $50 fee they paid for a credit report. Centerre Title is a company Mr. Wyss owned next to his law office. In 2004, defendant Alliance Mortgage moved Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis to add Centerre Title and Mr. Wyss as third party defendants. Judge Kardis granted the motion. The effect was that Mr. Wyss accidentally sued himself. Mr. Wyss moved and was allowed to dismiss himself from the case. He also moved to dismiss Centerre Title as defendant, but the judge denied the motion. Byron certified the case in January 2005. Defendants moved for leave to appeal, but Judge Byron denied the motion last July. In October, the new attorney for American Home Loans, John Baroni of St. Louis, amended the answer to the complaint. He asked Judge Byron to deny class certification, enter judgment in favor of his client on all counts, dismiss with prejudice, and award attorney fees and costs. The plaintiffs replied, and nothing has happened since, according to a June 1 report by The Madison St. Clair Record. Judge Byron has set case management conferences and the parties have agreed to continue them, the report said. Mr. Baroni is an associate in Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, A Professional Corporation, One City Centre, 15th Floor St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (Independent City), Phone: 314-231- 3332; 800-225-5529, Telecopier: 314-241-7604. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls ATVs to Repair Rear Brake ---------------------------------------------------------- Bombardier Recreational Products of Quebec, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 11,300 units of Bombardier all-terrain vehicles. The company said the operator could ride with their foot engaging the rear brake without noticing. This can cause the rear brake to overheat and possibly ignite, posing a risk of serious injury or death. Bombardier has received eight reports of fire caused by the rear brake overheating and igniting. The fires only involved property damage to the ATVs. No injuries have been reported. Included in the recall are Bombardier brand Model Year 2006 Outlander 650 and 800 ATVs and Some Can-Am brand Model Year 2007 Outlander 650 ATVs. Serial numbers are located on the front of the ATV on the identification decal. The ATVs were available in yellow, green, red, and camouflage. These all-terrain vehicles were manufactured in Canada and are being sold at Bombardier and Can-Am ATV dealers nationwide from August 2005 through June 2006 for between $7,900 and $10,400. Picture of the recalled all-terrain vehicle: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06561.jpg Consumers are advised to pay close attention when operating and be careful not to accidentally engage the rear brake with their foot. Consumers should immediately contact their local Bombardier or Can-Am ATV dealer to schedule an appointment for a free repair. Consumers with the recalled ATVs are being sent direct notices from BRP. For more information, call Bombardier at (888) 864-2002 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET or visit http://www.brp.com. BRADY FARMS: Settles Labor Lawsuit Filed by Migrant Workers ----------------------------------------------------------- Brady Farms of Grand Haven Township, Michigan has settled a lawsuit filed by migrant workers employed in the Ottawa County blueberry farm, according to The Grand Rapids Press. The Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project initiated a suit against Brady Farms in 2004, alleging labor law violations, the Holland Sentinel reports (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7, 2004). The group filed the suit on behalf of 19 field workers as a purported class action. The suit accuses owner Robert L. Brady and several of his supervisors of failing to pay the blueberry pickers minimum wage, keeping accurate pay records, and providing adequate access to water, bathrooms and washing facilities. The proposed class included workers who suffered the alleged claims between July 22, 1998 and Dec. 31, 2005. Details of the recent settlement agreement were not disclosed, but it reportedly involves monetary compensation, according to The Grand Rapids Press. Defendants denied any wrongdoing. Defendants in the suit are: -- Brady Farms Inc., and its owner Robert Brady, -- Autumn Leaves, LLC (owner), -- Dos Amigos, LLC (owner), -- Twin Lake Farms Inc., -- Jose Arturo Chavez (farm contractor), -- Santiago-Botello-Perez (farm contractor), -- Juan Esteban Garcia (farm contractor), -- Mauro Lopez (farm contractor), -- Ismael Perez (farm contractor), -- Adrian Zavala (farm contractor), -- Jose Trujillo-Gomez (farm contractor), and -- Vicente Perez (farm contractor) Based in Grand Haven Township at 14786 Winans St., Brady Farms has fields in Holland and Olive townships, as well as near the company's base in Grand Haven Township and in the Nunica area. CALPINE CORP: Appeal on Calif. ERISA Suit's Dismissal to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties allowed an appeal to proceed in relation to the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California of a consolidated class action against Calpine Corp. On April 17, 2003, James Phelps filed a class action complaint, alleging claims under Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On May 19, 2003, Lenette Poor-Herena filed a nearly identical class action complaint in the same court. The parties agreed to have both of the ERISA actions assigned to Judge Armstrong. On Aug. 20, 2003, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, Judge Armstrong ordered that the two ERISA actions be consolidated as, "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA." Plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated ERISA complaint on Jan. 20, 2004. Ms. Poor-Herena is not identified as a plaintiff in the Consolidated Complaint. The consolidated complaint defines the class as all participants in, and beneficiaries of the Calpine Corp. Retirement Savings Plan for whose accounts investments were made in Calpine stock from Jan. 5, 2001 to the present. It names as defendants: -- the company; -- the members of its board of directors; -- the Plan's Advisory Committee and its members: * Kati Miller, * Lisa Bodensteiner, * Rick Barraza, * Tom Glymph, * Patrick Price, * Trevor Thor, * Bob McCaffrey * Bryan Bertacchi; -- signatories of the Plan's Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002: Pamela J. Norley and Marybeth Kramer-Johnson, Respectively; -- an employee of a consulting firm hired by the Plan: Scott Farris; and -- unidentified fiduciary defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties involving the plan, in violation of ERISA by: -- misrepresenting the company's actual financial results and earnings projections; -- failing to disclose certain transactions between the company and Enron Corp. that allegedly inflated Calpine's revenues; -- failing to disclose that the shortage of power in California during 2000-2001 was due to withholding of capacity by certain power companies; and -- failing to investigate whether Calpine common stock was an appropriate investment for the plan, and failing to take appropriate actions to prevent losses to the plan. In addition, the consolidated complaint alleges that certain of the individual defendants suffered from conflicts of interest due to their sales of the company's common stock during the class period. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Judge Armstrong granted the motion and dismissed three of the four claims with prejudice. The remaining claim, for misrepresentation, was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on June 3, 2005. The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants Calpine Corp. and the members of the Advisory Committee for the Plan. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on Dec. 5, 2005. Plaintiff appealed the court's dismissal orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has extended the stay to the other defendants, suspended the briefing schedule on the appeal as to all parties, and requested a status report, which was filed on June 28, 2006. The company recently filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the hearing was scheduled for June 5, 2006. Just prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated to allow the appeal to proceed and, if the lower court ruling is reversed, the plaintiffs may then seek leave from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to proceed with the action. The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 4:03-cv-01685-SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Edward W. Ciolko and F. Andre Delfi of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com; and (2) Robert S. Green and Robert A. Jigarjian of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477- 6710, E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM. Representing the company is Robert L. McKague of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-813-5835, Fax: 650-494-0792, E-mail: rmckague@mofo.com. CALPINE CORP: Hawaii Fund Appeals Extension of Automatic Stay ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund is appealing the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York's order extending the automatic stay to the individual defendants in a California state court suit against Calpine Corp. The suit is a Section 11 case brought as a class action. It was filed on behalf of purchasers in the company's April 2002 stock offering. The case was filed in San Diego County Superior Court on March 11, 2003. However, defendants won a motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County. Defendants in the case include the company, Peter Cartwright, Ann B. Curtis, John Wilson, Kenneth Derr, George Stathakis, Credit Suisse First Boston, Banc of America Securities, Deutsche Bank Securities, and Goldman, Sachs & Co. The Hawaii Fund alleges that the prospectus and registration statement for the April 2002 offering had false or misleading statements regarding: -- Calpine's actual financial results for 2000 and 2001; -- Calpine's projected financial results for 2002; -- Mr. Cartwright's agreement not to sell or purchase shares within 90 days of the offering; and -- Calpine's alleged involvement in "wash trades." A central allegation of the complaint is that a March 2003 restatement concerning the accounting for two sales-leaseback transactions revealed that the company had misrepresented its financial results in the prospectus/registration statement for the April 2002 offering. This action is stayed as to the company pursuant to federal bankruptcy law. There is no trial date in this action. The company recently filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants, or enjoin further prosecution of the action. The Hawaii Fund opposed that motion. On June 5, 2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the motion. Accordingly, the case is now stayed as to the company entity defendants and the individual defendants. On June 16, 2006, the Hawaii Fund filed a notice of appeal of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's order extending the automatic stay to the individual defendants. The suit is "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine, et al." CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 16, 2006 for the proposed $5,250,000 settlement in a securities class action against Carreker Corp. The case was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Carreker Corp. from July 30, 1999 to Dec. 10, 2002. It alleges violations of: -- Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants: * the company, * John D. Carreker Jr., * Ronald Antinori and Terry L. Gage, except Ernst & \ Young LLP, -- violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and -- violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jane J. Boyle at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, Texas 75242. Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made before Aug. 2, 2006 and July 17, 2006, respectively. Claim forms must be submitted before Oct. 2, 2006. The suit is "In re Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-CV-0250-B." For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P., P.O. Box 270, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0270, Phone: 1-800-252-5745, E- mail: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/carr/. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Short-Selling Transactions --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman, Sachs & Co. is a defendant in two purported class actions filed beginning April 12, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by customers who engaged in short-selling transactions in equity securities since April 12, 2000. The suits, filed by the hedge funds, Electronic Trading Group LLC and Quark Fund LLC, are: -- "Quark Fund, LLC. v. Banc of America Securities LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02933-VM," and -- "Electronic Trading Group, LLC v. Banc of America Securities LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02859-VM." The complaints generally allege that the customers were charged fees in connection with the short sales but that the applicable securities were not necessarily borrowed to effect delivery, resulting in failed deliveries. Both complaints allege that this conduct constituted a conspiracy in violation of the federal antitrust laws, and also assert claims under the New York Business Law and common law. The suits are both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs is Vincent R. Cappucci of Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP, 280 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 894-7200. Representing the company Richard Howard Klapper of Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, (NYC), 125 Broad Street, NY, NY 10004, Phone: 212-558-3555, Fax: 212-558-3588, E-mail: klapperr@sullcrom.com. HEAT & GLO: Recalls Twilight Gas Fireplaces for Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Heat & Glo, of Lakeville, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,550 units of indoor/outdoor gas fireplaces. The company said temperatures in the framing header area above these fireplaces can get too high, posing a fire hazard. Heat & Glo has received a report of one incident resulting in property damage that may be related to this hazard. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves the Heat & Glo Twilight II and IIB indoor/outdoor see-through gas fireplaces. The model name, Twilight II or IIB, can be found by looking at the bottom right side of the inside of the control compartment of the inside portion of the fireplace. These fireplaces were manufactured in Canada and are being sold by fireplace stores and distributors nationwide from July 2005 through April 2006 for about $3,700. Picture of the recalled fireplace: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06562.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using these fireplaces until the repair is performed. Homeowners are being contacted by Heat & Glo to schedule an appointment for the free repair. For more information, contact Heat & Glo at (800) 215-5152 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the company's Website: http://www.heatnglo.com. INDIANA: August Hearing Set in Medicaid Lawsuit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 2, 2006 hearing has been set before a district court for the settlement of a class action filed by six Medicaid recipients who lost benefits after state officials ruled their incomes were too high to receive assistance, the SouthBendTribune.com reports. State officials have agreed to reinstate Medicaid benefits for about 10,000 blind, elderly and disabled people in order to settle the class action. The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration had stopped giving aid to some Medicaid recipients starting Jan. 1 after it automated much of its program in response to a 2003 lawsuit. As a result, some recipients lost the aid in January. In certain cases, the concerned individuals didn't even knew about it. Under the settlement, the FSSA will stop removing people from the program without a hearing. It said it will take about 30 days to reinstate people in the list. One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Mary Daugherty of Vincennes. Representing plaintiffs is Scott R. Severns of Severns & Bennett, P.C. (http://www.severns.com/)Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion Co.). According to Mr. Severns the state had terminated benefits to about 300 to 350 people a month. KAVA KAVA: Settlement Hearing of Calif. Lawsuit Set August 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie H. Elias will hold a fairness hearing on the proposed $717,031 settlement of the class action "In re Kava Kava Litigation" on Aug. 11, 2006, 9:00 a.m. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons in California who purchased products containing the herb Kava Kava between March 14, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2005. The trial will be at Department 308 of the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is July 14, 2006. Under the settlement, the court shall enter a permanent injunction requiring each settling defendant to provide specific product warnings on all Kava Products that the respective settling defendant makes available for sale in the state of California or makes available for sale to any third party whom settling defendants know will offer Kava Products for sale in the State of California. In summary, the warnings pertain to the alleged risk of liver problems associated with Kava Product use, among other warnings. The settling defendants have also agreed to make settlement payments, totaling $717,031, from which two charitable contributions, together totaling at least $100,000, will be made to two organizations agreed upon by the settling parties and approved by the Court. Class counsel will apply for attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $520,531. This amount will not fully reimburse class counsel for their fees and costs. In addition, class counsel will ask the court to award each of the representative plaintiffs $500 in recognition of the services provided for the class in this lawsuit. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on April 27, 2006. In 2002, cases were filed against certain entities that allegedly manufactured, distributed and/or sold products containing "kava kava" or "piper methysticum" without adequately warning consumers of alleged risks of liver damage. These actions were subsequently consolidated by the Los Angeles Superior Court into: "In re Kava Kava Litigation, Case No. BC 269717." For more information, contact: (1) defendants' notice counsel: Amy P. Lally, Sidley Austin LLP, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013; or (2) co-lead class counsel: Christopher M. Burke of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619- 231-1058); or (3) David R. Scott and Arthur L. Shingler III Scott+Scott, LLC, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 619-233-4565. LOUISIANA: Suit Filed Over Demolition of Housing Complexes ---------------------------------------------------------- Eighteen former residents of public housing units in New Orleans, Louisiana filed a purported class action in federal court on June 27 over the demolition of the complexes they used to live in. The St. Bernard, C.J. Peete, B.W. Cooper and Lafitte housing complexes have been shuttered under a plan by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to redevelop them. The plan emerged after the housing projects were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The suit alleges discrimination, violation of fair housing, equal protection and international laws that protect people displaced by natural disasters. In the aspect of discrimination, the defendants allegedly prevented low-income black families from returning to the city. Plaintiffs are demanding that the federal government help low-income residents return to their former neighborhoods. The suit was filed in part by the Advancement Project, a national civil-rights and racial justice organization based in Washington, D.C. Defendants are the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Housing Authority of New Orleans. The suit specifically names as defendants HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and two federal officials recently assigned to run the Housing Authority's board, Donald Babers and Bill Thorson. The suit is "Anderson et al. v. Jackson et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle with referral to Alma L. Chasez. Representing the plaintiff is William Patrick Quigley of Loyola Law School Clinic, 7214 St. Charles Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118, Phone: (504) 861-5590, Fax: duprestars@yahoo.com. MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mercury Interactive Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's July 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended May 26, 2006. Starting Aug. 19, 2005, several securities class action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock from October 2003 to November 2005. The class actions were later consolidated as "In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C05- 3395." The original actions were: -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395"; -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05- 3864"; -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05- 4031"; and -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157. The securities class action complaints allege, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints generally allege that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding its business and operations, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the defendants. On May 5, 2006, the Court appointed the Mercury Pension Fund Group, represented by Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, as lead plaintiff and counsel. The parties stipulated, and the court approved, a briefing schedule by which the consolidated amended complaint will be filed between Aug. 7, 2006 and Sept. 5, 2006. The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Representing the plaintiffs is Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott + Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-233-4565, Fax: 619-233-0508, E-mail: ashingler@scott- scott.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Nicole Acton Jones of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 333 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-772-6032, Fax: 415-772-6268, E-mail: nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com; (2) Kirk Andrew Dublin of Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104-1500, Phone: 415- 626-3939, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: kdublin@jonesday.com; (3) Jeffrey S. Facter of Shearman & Sterling, LLP, 525 Market Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-616-1100, Fax: 415-616-1199, E-mail: jfacter@shearman.com. MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Consumers' Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa remanded a class action filed by software purchasers against Microsoft Corp. back to state court, according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com. Entitled, "Comes and Riley Paint, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp." the suit was initially filed in District Court for Polk County Iowa and later transferred to the district court. On Sept. 16, 2003, the Iowa trial court certified two classes of Iowa software purchasers. One class represents the "Microsoft Operating Systems Software Class," which consists of Iowa indirect purchasers of Microsoft . . . operating systems software. The second class is the "Microsoft Applications Software Class," which consists of Iowa indirect purchasers of Microsoft applications software. In an attempt to keep the case in the district court, the company took advantage of the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, which was filed after the Class Action Fairness Act's date of commencement. However, Chief Judge Ronald E. Longstaff's disagreed with the company's argument on the jurisdictional issues, and the court held that the civil action commenced in February of 2000 when the software purchasing plaintiffs filed their original complaint in Iowa state court. After that the judge addresses the company's assertion that federal jurisdiction was proper due to the federal questions presented in the plaintiffs' latest version of their complaint. However, the court concluded that broad allegations of violations of federal securities laws and a brief mention of intellectual property did not create federal jurisdiction. It added that the securities law violations in the plaintiffs' fourth petition were not related to their claim for relief. Judge Longstaff noted that simply raising a point of federal law in the context of state law claims does not generate federal question jurisdiction. Finally, the court addresses issues in relation the Class Action Fairness Act. Judge Longstaff did not recognize the burden of proof split perpetuated by CAFA, and immediately shouldered the company with the burden of proving removal was proper. It Relied on the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure that state a civil action commences upon a filing of a petition to the court. The court held that a civil action could only be commenced once. Reinforcing its reasoning with CAFA's legislative history, the district court recognized Congress's intent to limit CAFA's application to cases filed after it became effective. Judge Longstaff concluded that the plaintiffs were not seeking to recover on a new claim, and therefore the action commenced long before CAFA became law, precluding removal under the statute. Finding no federal jurisdiction existed, the case remanded back to state court. A copy of the decision is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d55. The suit is "Comes et al v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 4:05-cv- 00562-REL-RAW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Ronald E. Longstaff with referral to Judge Ross A. Walters. Representing the plaintiffs is Roxanne Barton Conlin of Roxanne Conlin & Associates, 319 7th Street, Suite 600, Des Moines, IA 50309, Phone: 515 283 1111, Fax: 515 282 0477, E-mail: roxlaw@aol.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Brent B. Green of Duncan Green Brown Langeness & Eckley, PC, 400 Locust St., Suite 380, Des Moines, IA 50309-2331, Phone: 515 288 6440, Fax: 288 6448, E-mail: bgreen@duncangreenlaw.com; (2) Sharon L. Nelles of Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, US, Phone: 212-558-4000; and (3) Edward W. Remsburg of Ahlers & Cooney, PC, 100 Court Ave., Ste. 600, Des Moines, IA 50309-2231, Phone: 515 243 7611, Fax: 243 2149, E-mail: eremsbur@ahlerslaw.com. MONACO COACH: Recalls Hundreds of Motor Home Workhorse Chassis -------------------------------------------------------------- Monaco Coach Corp., in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 404 units Workhorse Chassis. The company said certain motor home chassis built on Workhorse Chassis may have been equipped with incorrect steering intermediate shafts. The spline can strip while the steering wheel is being turned. The steering condition could result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of crash. These motor home chassis models are included in the recall: Make/Models: Model/Build Years: HOLIDAY RAMBLER/ADMIRAL SE 2006 HOLIDAY RAMBLER/VACATIONER 2006-2007 MONACO COACH/LAPALMA 2006-2007 MONACO COACH/MONARCH 2007 MONACO COACH/MONARCH SE 2006 SAFARI/SIMBA 2006 SAFARI/TREK 2006-2007 Consumers are advised to inform Workhorse for inspection and, if necessary, for replacement of the steering intermediate shaft. For more information, contact Workhorse at 1-877-294-6773 or Monaco Coach at 1-800-685-6545. MSG/NUCLEOTIDES SETTLEMENT: $39.775M Windfall Awaits Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- A $39.775 million settlement has been proposed in a class action involving indirect purchasers of the flavor enhancers monosodium glutamate (MSG) or Nucleotides (DSG, DSI, and I-plus-G) and products containing MSG or Nucleotides. The settlement resolves alleged antitrust, consumer protection and unfair trade practice law violations against: -- Archer Daniels Midland Co.; -- Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and Ajinomoto USA, Inc.; -- CJ Corp., f/k/a Cheil Jedang Corporation and CJ America, Inc.; -- Daesang Corporation Daesang Group d/b/a/ Miwon Group, Miwon Company Ltd., Daesang Japan, Inc. and Daesang America, Inc.; -- Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko U.S.A., Inc., Kyowa Foods, Inc., and Kyowa America, Inc.; -- Samsung Corp.; and -- Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Limited f/k/a Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd. Although the defendants have agreed to settle these allegations, they deny the violations ever occurred. The settlement affects consumers and businesses that indirectly purchased MSG and/or Nucleotides manufactured or sold by any of the defendants between Jan. 1, 1983 and Oct. 1, 1999 in: * Arizona, * Arkansas, * District of Columbia, * Florida, * Hawaii, * Iowa, * Kansas, * Louisiana, * Maine, * Michigan, * Minnesota, * Mississippi, * Nevada, * New Jersey, * New Mexico, * New York, * North Carolina, * North Dakota, * Puerto Rico, * South Dakota, * Tennessee, * Vermont, * West Virginia, * Wisconsin Indirect purchasers are those persons or entities that purchased MSG or Nucleotides from a source other than the manufacturer. MSG and Nucleotides are food flavor enhancers used in a variety of foods such as dehydrated soups and gravies; canned meat; sausage; prepared meals; tomato sauce and ketchup; mayonnaise; snack foods; soy sauce; preserved crab, prawn, fish and shellfish; Asian cuisine; and prepared vegetables. The court in the Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 25, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. MDT for the proposed settlement. The suit is "Eugene Higgins v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Case No. 06168." It alleges that from Jan. 1, 1983 until at least Nov. 1, 1999 the defendants, along with their co-conspirators, conspired to fix prices, allocate market share and otherwise restrain trade and eliminate competition in the U.S. for the sale of MSG and Nucleotides, both food flavor enhancers in violation of state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair trade practices acts (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2006). Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement are due on Sept. 15, 2006. For more details, contact: (1) [Settlement Administrator] MSG Indirect Purchaser, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 832, Acworth, GA 30101-0832, Phone: 1-888-245-1009, Web site: http://www.msgindirectsettlement.com/; (2) [Plaintiff] David Boies, III of Straus & Boies, LLP, 4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor, Fairfax, VA 22030, Phone: (703) 764-8700; and (3) [Defendant] Michael R. Lazerwitz, Esq. of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, Phone: (202) 974- 1500. NEW MEXICO: Santa Fe County Jail Settles Strip Search Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a suit filed by former Santa Fe County jail inmates who were strip-searched at the county jail have reached a preliminary settlement, according to Associated Press. An order filed by U.S. Magistrate Alan Torgerson says the parties are drafting the necessary documents, which they should file by a July 10 deadline. The suit filed in January 2005 concerns the jail's blanket strip search policy. It seeks to permanently end the practice as well as the inspections of all inmates admitted to the jail. The suit alleges that none of the plaintiffs named were admitted to the jail for violent offenses, and none were found to be in possession of any contraband after they were subjected to a strip search, according to the Web site of Lawyers and Settlements. Former warden Kerry Dixon has said the policy was scrapped in December 2004. NEW YORK: NYLAG Files Suit in N.Y. Over USCIS Processing Delays --------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Legal Assistance Group filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a class of immigrants challenging pervasive delays in the processing of naturalization applications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Under federal law, USCIS is required to grant or deny naturalization applications within 120 days of the applicant's interview. However, USCIS' failure to review these applications in a timely manner has resulted in many immigrants waiting well over six months since their interviews with no word from USCIS. These delays are allegedly particularly troubling, as many of the plaintiffs are elderly and/or disabled individuals who will lose their sole source of financial assistance, Supplemental Security Income, leaving them to rely on much lower state public assistance. Additionally, all plaintiffs have been reportedly deprived the right to vote in elections. A statement from The New York Legal Assistance Group relates an experience of lead plaintiff Raisa Yakubova, a refugee from Uzbekistan, came to the U.S. in 1998. After being a legal resident for five years, she applied for naturalization in February 2004 and was called for an interview in April 2005. At that interview, Mrs. Yakubova was allegedly told she had passed all relevant exams, and that she would be called for the oath ceremony soon. However, since that time, her application has not been adjudicated and she has not been called to participate in an oath ceremony, according to the statement. As a result, Mrs. Yakubova lost her Supplemental Security Income benefits in December 2005. "I feel totally helpless and at the mercy of USCIS . . . I want to be a citizen so I can vote and fully participate in the democracy of the U.S. However, I have been waiting so long that I fear that it will never happen." Founded in 1990, the New York Legal Assistance Group is a not- for-profit law office providing free civil legal services to low income New Yorkers. The suit is "Yakubova et. al. v. Chertoff et. al., Case No. 1:06-cv-03203-ERK-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Edward R. Korman, with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann. Representing the plaintiffs are Deborah Berkman, Caroline Jane Hickey and Jane Greengold Stevens all of The New York Legal Assistance Group, 450 West 33rd Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10001, Phone: 212-613-5000 or 212-613-5077 or 212- 750-0800 ext. 207, Fax: 212-750-0800 or 212-750-0820, E-mail: dberkman@nylag.org or chickey@nylag.org or jstevens@nylag.org. The New York Legal Assistance Group on the Net: http://www.nylag.org ORKIN INC: Appeals Court Dismisses "Butland" Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The Florida Second District Court of Appeals rejected the efforts of plaintiffs' attorneys to certify a class in the suit, "Butland, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co." The plaintiffs filed the suit in March 1999 and are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief for Orkin customers who were allegedly damaged as a result of the rendering of services by the company (Class Action Reporter, May 24, 2006). In early April of 2002, the court certified the suit as class action. The company appealed that ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the trial court for further findings (Class Action Reporter, May 24, 2006). In December 2005, the court issued a new ruling certifying the class action. The company appealed this new ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals (Class Action Reporter, May 24, 2006). In a July 5 statement, the company said the court of appeal has completely rejected plaintiffs' attorneys' efforts to get class status for the suit. Atlanta-based Orkin, Inc. -- http://www.orkin.com-- is an industry leader in essential pest control services and protection against termite damage, rodents and insects in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica. For more information, contact Martha Craft, Orkin, Inc. Media Contact, Phone: 404-888-2217. PHILIPPINES: Marcos Victims Payout Depends on Available Funding --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said victims of human rights violations under the regime of deposed president Ferdinand Marcos are assured of getting immediate payment of $2,000 (PHP106,000) each, but the distribution is still subject to the availability of funds, the Journal Online reports. Secretary Ermita added that current President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is supporting the release of the indemnification fund, noting an earlier mandate from the president urging Congress to set aside part of the recovered ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses as compensation to human rights victims. The Manila Standard Today quoted Presidential spokesman Ignacio Bunye saying that the president would like to end the legal battle for the assets of the Marcoses without compromising the interests of the government. In 1986, about 9,500 victims of human rights abuses filed a class action against the Marcos estate the same year he was deposed as president after a 20-year rule. The former president and his family fled to Hawaii, where he died in exile in 1989 (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2006). Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court in Hawaii has issued an order authorizing partial compensation of $2,000 each to about 7,500 victims of human rights abuses of his regime (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2006). In May, the Philippine Presidential Commission on Good Government appealed the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to use the money illegally acquired by him to pay human-rights abuse victims because of technicalities that make the ruling problematic (Class Action Reporter, May 10, 2006). Foreign banks and the Philippine government are claiming ownership of the Marcos wealth. The Philippine government claimed the money belonged to its treasury, but the appeals court said it had no legal right to that deposit (Class Action Reporter, May 10, 2006). The commission has proposed a compromise settlement with the Marcoses. RAZORFISH INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing on July 25, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed $3,000,000 settlement in the matter: "Swack v. Credit Suisse First, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-11943-DPW." Filed on Oct. 3, 2002, the case was brought on behalf of all persons who acquired Razorfish, Inc. common stock between May 24, 1999 and May 4, 2001. The hearing will be held before the Douglas P. Woodlock in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210. Any objections and exclusion to and from the settlement must be made by July 11, 2006. Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on Oct. 6, 2006. For more details, contact: (1) Claims Administrator, Razorfish Securities Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, N.Y. 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810; and (2) Thomas G. Shapiro, Edward F. Haber and Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com, ehaber@shulaw.com and ted@shulaw.com. SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Remands Consumer Suit Back to Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remanded back to California state court the consumer fraud class action "Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Case No. 05 C 4743," according to McGlinchey Stafford of http://www.cafalawblog.com. The suit, which was consolidated under "In Re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Tools Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL-1703," for coordinated proceedings, alleges that the company sold to consumer foreign-made tools while deceptively advertising its Craftsman line of tools as being made exclusively in the U.S.A. Plaintiffs filed the class action complaint in January 2005, asserting claims of consumer fraud violations against the retailer on behalf of "all person who purchased Craftsman tools in the State of California from Jan. 6, 2001 through the present." On March 24, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, asserting the same claims of consumer fraud, but also broadening the class definition to include "all persons who purchased Craftsman branded tools and products in the state of California from Jan. 6, 2001 through the present." Based on this modification, the company removed the case to federal court alleging the amendment commenced a new action post-Class Action Fairness Act. Going from "tools" to "tools and products" didn't do it for the district judge, who placed the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction under CAFA to the company, thanks to the Seventh Circuit's opinion in "Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans," according to according to McGlinchey Stafford. Addressing the commencement issue, District Judge John F. Grady decided that the post-CAFA expansion of the class definition did not create federal jurisdiction under the statute. The court recognizes that an action "commences" when it is filed in state court by relying upon the Seventh Circuit's opinion in "Knudsen v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." Though Judge Grady acknowledged an amendment could commence a new suit if it is "sufficiently independent of the original contentions," he leaned on "Schorsch v. Hewlett-Packard Co." to conclude the newly-added language of "and products" concerned the same transaction or occurrence as the one involved in the original suit. The court noted that it is an extreme exaggeration to say that the amended complaint in this case "greatly expanded" the scope of the putative class. It pointed out that the amendment was your basic "workaday change routine in class suits." Using every Seventh Circuit precedents, Judge Grady made clear that it did not matter that the amendment added new plaintiffs, referencing "Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.," wherein the circuit court held that "amending a state-court class action to add or substitute plaintiffs did not 'commence' a new case under CAFA." Since the case was originally filed in California state court, but was transferred to Illinois federal court as a result of multi-district litigation, Judge Grady's relation back conclusion addressed both California and Illinois state law. The judge noted, "California is similar to federal and Illinois law; an amended complaint relates back to the original when it is based on the same general set of facts, seeks relief for the same injuries, and refers to the same incident." The court concluded all three were satisfied when considering the amendment. Thus, the court remanded the action back to California state court. Addressing one final issue, Judge Grady did not award plaintiffs' attorney's fees in contesting the removal, citing that since CAFA was on the books only a month before the company removed the case, it would not be fair to say the strategy lacked an objectively unreasonable basis. A copy of the various court opinions is available at: -- http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d5a(Santamarina) -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d58(Knudsen) -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d57(Brill) -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49b(Schorsch) -- http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d59(Philllips) The suit is "Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Case No. 1:05- cv-04743," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John F. Grady. Representing the plaintiffs is Barbara J. Hart of Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-5563, Phone: (212) 907-0700, E-mail: bhart@labaton.com. Representing the company are Francis Anthony Citera and Andrew Eliseev of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Phone: (312) 456-8400 and (310) 586-7700, E-mail: citeraf@gtlaw.com and eliseeva@gtlaw.com. SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Judge Okays Continental Forge Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager gave final approval to the Continental Forge settlement, resolving the major claims filed against Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and another utility in a class suit related to California's energy crisis in 2000-2001, the North County Times reports. Under the settlement, the company will make cash payments in installments aggregating $377 million, of which $347 million relates to the Continental Forge and California class action price reporting litigation. Of the $377 million, $83 million would be paid within 30 days of final approval of the settlement by the San Diego County Superior Court, and an additional $83 million would be paid on the first anniversary of that approval. Of the remaining amount, $27.3 million would be paid on the closing date of the settlement and $26.3 million would be paid on each successive anniversary of the closing date through the seventh anniversary of the closing date. At any time after the first anniversary of the closing date, the company would have the option to prepay all or any portion of the remaining unpaid settlement amounts at a discount rate of 7%, with any partial prepayment applied to and reducing each remaining payment on an equal and proportionate basis. The Continental Forge litigation, which is the subject of the aforementioned settlement, consists of class action and individual antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits consolidated in San Diego Superior Court. The suit alleges that Sempra Energy along with other investor- owned utilities in California unlawfully sought to control natural gas and electricity markets. It claims damages of $23 billion on behalf of all natural gas and electric consumers served by the California investor-owned utilities. The Continental Forge settlement would also include the settlement of class action price reporting litigation, consisting of antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court. The suit alleges Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported natural gas transactions to publishers of price indices and engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions. SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissed Pa. Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of the securities fraud class action against Smithfield Foods, Inc. In June 2001, the company acquired a 50% interest in Pennexx and extended Pennexx a $30 million line of credit, secured by Pennexx's assets. In July 2003, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders of Pennexx Foods, Inc. against Pennexx, its directors, the company and two of its officers who were former directors of Pennexx. Plaintiffs, who sought unspecified compensatory damages, allege that: -- defendants artificially inflated the price of Pennexx stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's financial performance, business operations and prospects; and, -- the company breached its fiduciary duties owed to the non-controlling shareholders of Pennexx through its scheme to control and undermine Pennexx's business. At that same time, Pennexx defaulted under the Smithfield Credit Agreement. The company subsequently seized all of the tangible property assets of Pennexx and transferred the assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, terminating Pennexx's ability to continue its business. In January 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action, which the court granted in part and denied in part in September 2004. In February 2005, the shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of certain Pennexx shareholders. In June 2005, the court dismissed the class action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The court took this action following the withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and the failure of any other putative class member to step forward as lead plaintiff. In July 2005, the class action plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the company's June 30, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. The federal suit is "The Winer Family Trust v. Queen et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04318-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova. Representing the defendants are: (1) Alan K. Cotler, Robert A. Nicholas and Milind M. Shah of Reed Smith, LLP, 1650 Market St., 2500 One Liberty Pl., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-851-8100 and 215-851-8298, Fax: 215-851-1420, E-mail: acotler@reedsmith.com, rnicholas@reedsmith.com and mshah@reedsmith.com; (2) Edward J. Fuhr and Terence J. Rasmussen of Hunton & Williams, LLP, Riverfront Plaza, E. Tower, 951 E. Byrd St., Richmond, VA 23219-4074, Phone: 804-788-8201 and 804-788-8632, Fax: 804-788-8218; and (3) Eric F. Spade of Mitts Milavec & Spade, LLC, 1835 Market Street, 15TH Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-569-1800, Fax: 215-569-1822, E-mail: espade@mittslaw.com. SUPERIOR FORESTRY: Migrant Workers' Suit Denied Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal court has recently denied a request by migrant workers to certify as class action a suit they filed against Superior Forestry Service Inc., but allowed plaintiffs to renew such motion, according to Associated Press. The suit was launched earlier this year on behalf of three migrant workers from Mexico who claimed their Arkansas-based employer failed to pay them as promised to plant trees in Tennessee, WBIR.com reports (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2006). The suit was filed in Columbia by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It sought to become a class action for an estimated 15- hundred migrant temporary workers that the Tilly-based company, employed over the past six years. In addition it also sought back pay, travel expenses, other monetary damages and an injunction prohibiting the company from violating federal wage and working condition laws. The three named plaintiffs are Andres Aldana-Moreno, Jesus Santiago-Salmoran, and Jose Rosiles- Perez. No trial date has been scheduled yet, according to the Associated Press report. The suit is "Rosiles-Perez, et al. v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:06-cv-00006," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge William J. Haynes. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Clifton David Briley of Briley Law Group, PLLC, 511 Union Street, Suite 1610, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: (615) 986-2684, E-mail: david@brileylaw.com; (2) Tim A. Freilich of Legal Aid Justice Center, 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A, Charlottesville, VA 22903, US, Phone: (434) 977-0553 x 111, Fax: (434) 977-0558, E- mail: tim@justice4all.org; (3) Mary C. Bauer, Kristi Graunke and Jennifer J. Rosenbaum of Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrant Justice Project, 400 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, US, Phone: (334) 956-8200, Fax: (334) 956-8481, E-mail: kgraunke@splcenter.org and jennifer.rosenbaum@splcenter.org; (4) Marni Willenson of Willenson Law Group, LLC, 4308 N. Ridgeway Avenue, Chicago, IL 60618, US, Phone: (312) 546-4137, Fax: (312) 261-9977, E-mail: marni.willenson@gmail.com; (5) James M. Knoepp of Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers, 6066 Leesburg Pike, Suite 520, Falls Church, VA 22041, US, Phone: (703) 778-3450, Fax: (703) 778-3454; and (6) Matthew J. Piers and Joshua Karsh of Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & Dum, Ltd., 70 W. Madison, Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60602-4692, US, Phone: (312) 580-0100, Fax: (312) 580-1994. TRAVEL COMPANIES: New Mexico City Sues Online Travel Agents ----------------------------------------------------------- Albuquerque attorney James Lyle initiated a class action on behalf the city of Gallup, against online travel Web sites, alleging that the firms are underpaying taxes to the city for brokering hotel rooms, the Albuquerque Journal reports. The suit alleges the travel sites buy room rentals from hotels at a discounted rate, mark them up for resale to customers, who pays the tax for the full rental price. The travel agents, however, allegedly remit taxes based only on the discount rate paid to the local hotel. New Mexico state law requires cities to levy up to 5 percent in lodgers tax, also known as an occupancy tax. Originally filed in the 11th Judicial District Court, the suit was moved to federal court on June 23 by attorneys for the defendants, which include, Hotels.com, Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity as well as other agencies. Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including California, North Carolina and Ohio (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2006). According to Paul Chronis, an attorney defending Orbitz and related clients, the online travel companies don't purchase the hotel rooms, but rather facilitate online travel. Plaintiffs' attorney is James P. Lyle of The Law Office of James P. Lyle P.C., 1116 2nd Street NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102, Phone: (505) 843-8000, Fax: (505) 843-8043, Website: http://www.jamesplylelaw.com. Representing Orbitz in the suits is Paul E. Chronis of McDermott Will & Emery, 227 West Monroe, Chicago, IL 60606-5096, Phone: (312) 984-6473, Fax: (312) 984-7700. UNION PACIFIC: Workers File Suit Over Personal Data Theft in Ia. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nine Union Pacific Railroad Co. employees filed a class action complaint in the Pottawattamie County District Court in Iowa on behalf of a class that could include 30,000 members, the Omaha World-Herald reports. The suit stems from a police investigation in May over the theft of a computer with the names and Social Security numbers of active and retired Union Pacific employees. The human resources employee from whose computer the data were stolen on April 29 allegedly violated company policy by transferring work files to a private computer to work on at home. The plaintiffs allege Union Pacific acted negligently by failing to protect employees' Social Security numbers, by using them for purposes other than tax reporting, and by failing to use other employee-identifying numbers. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of punitive damages and a jury trial. Named plaintiffs in the suit are: -- William Price of Omaha; -- William Platt of Mitchell, Nebraska; -- Jerry Eubank of Cheyenne, Wyoming; -- George Owen of Independence, Missouri; -- Chris Nelson of Missouri Valley, Iowa; -- David Blackmore of Kansas City, Missouri; -- Jeffrey Klapprodt of Boone, Iowa; -- Chris Tucker of Abilene, Kansas; and -- Jacob Moore of Edwardsville, Kansas. Representing the plaintiffs are Ryan M. Sewell, 215 South Main Council Bluffs, Iowa 51503, Phone: 712-328-1575, Fax: 712-328- 1562; and Robert E. O'Connor, Jr., 2433 South 130th Circle Omaha, Nebraska 68144, Phone: 402-330-5906, Fax: 402-330-9763, E-mail: reolaw@aol.com, Website: http://www.dlcoconnor.com. UNION PACIFIC: Tex. Lawyer Asks Class Status for Derailment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Gloria Bradford of Texarkana has asked U.S. District Judge Harry Barnes in Arkansas to grant class status to a suit filed by residents affected by a Union Pacific train derailment last October in Texarkana, according to Associated Press. At about 5 a.m. on Oct. 15, a train operated by Union Pacific Railroad Co. that was coming from Chicago struck the back of another train coming from Pine Bluff in a rail yard on the south side of Texarkana. Eight cars derailed, and a tanker car containing propylene exploded and fire broke out. Attorney R. Gary Nutter of Texarkana, Texas subsequently filed a suit on behalf of residents Troy H. Bradford and Gloria Bradford and their business Books Etc. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 21, 2005). The suit accused the Omaha, Nebraska-based company of negligence, trespass, and causing a nuisance "in allowing toxic and hazardous chemicals" into the community. It sought an order requiring the company to clean up any damage and pay unspecified monetary compensation for personal injuries, evacuation and cleanup costs, property loss, and lost income resulting from the derailment. In November, Union Pacific Railroad Co. filed a petition to move the suit from Miller County Circuit Court where it was filed to federal court, KTBS, LA reports (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006). The petition stated that the case should be tried in federal court due to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, and due to the amount of money, which may eventually be involved in the suit. In a related matter, another class action has been filed by resident David Kemp, which has also been petitioned by Union Pacific to be moved to federal court. In December it was reported that residents of College Hill, Texas are asking a federal judge to send back the lawsuit that they filed against Union Pacific Corp. to Miller County circuit court where they originally filed it, The Texarkana Gazette reports (Troubled Company Reporter, Dec 09, 2005). UNITED KINGDOM: Lloyd's Investors Commence GBP1B Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Chris Stockwell initiated a lawsuit on behalf of 1,100 investors in Lloyd's of London against the government and the Treasury, The Scotsman reported. The suit alleges the Treasury failed to regulate the insurer properly. The investors, known as Names, claim they made heavy losses at Lloyd's because the market's watchdog, failed to implement key European Union directives. The E.U. directives include a measure that dictates how much insurers should hold in reserves when writing certain types of business. A Treasury spokesman denied it had failed to regulate Lloyd's properly, however. He added that they would defend the case, which seeks over GBP1 billion in compensation. The initial court case, which is expected to last around four weeks, will decide whether the Names are allowed to sue the government in a class action of this kind and whether their claim for compensation has expired. According to Mr. Stockwell, if they succeed in the first legal stage, he anticipates the class to swell well beyond the billion-pound mark. However, if they are defeated on these initial procedural points, the Names will appeal the decision to the U.K. Court of Appeal. If they fail there, they will take it to the European Court of Human Rights. UNITED STATES: Milberg Weiss Indictment Spurs Transparency Act -------------------------------------------------------------- As an aftermath of a federal indictment against the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP several congressmen recently introduced H.R. 5491 that would amend the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, according to Lyle Roberts of http://www.the10b-5daily.com. The legislation, entitled the "Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency Act," would: -- allow a prevailing defendant to argue to the court that the plaintiff's attorney should pay the prevailing defendant's fees and expenses because the "position of the plaintiff was not substantially justified;" -- require disclosure to the court of any conflict of interest between a plaintiff and his attorney and permit the court to disqualify the attorney if necessary; and -- permit courts to approve lead counsel in securities class actions through "alternative means," including a competitive bidding process. A hearing on the legislation took place on June 28, 2006, before the Subcommitte on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the House Committee on Financial Services. Witnesses in that hearing included: -- The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; -- The Honorable William F. Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; -- Theodore H. Frank, Resident Fellow and Director, AEI Liability Project, American Enterprise Institute; and -- James D. Cox, School of Law, Duke University A copy of the prepared testimony is available at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d45. On May 18, 2006, Milberg Weiss and two of its senior partners were indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly participating in a scheme in which several individuals were paid millions of dollars in secret kickbacks in exchange for serving as named plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits. The firm allegedly received well over $200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20 years. The indictment charges the firm and the partners of conspiracy with several objects, including obstructing justice, perjury, bribery and fraud. The conspiracy count outlines a scheme in which individuals received secret kickback payments to serve, or cause friends and relatives to serve, as named plaintiffs in lawsuits filed by Milberg Weiss, (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006). The federal probe into allegations against Milberg Weiss, which once dominated class action law in the U.S., accounting for 85% of all such suits filed in California and 60% elsewhere in 2001, came to light in January 2002, when a flurry of subpoenas went out to scores of lawyers and stockbrokers from major firms and plaintiffs who had participated in Milberg Weiss lawsuits, (Class Action Reporter, Jun. 29, 2005). In June 2005, Seymour Lazar, a Palm Springs investor and former entertainment lawyer was indicted, accused of collecting $2.4 million in "secret and illegal kickback payments" for his role in dozens of lawsuits, (Class Action Reporter, Jun. 29, 2005) In August 2005, federal prosecutors stepped up their criminal investigation of Milberg Weiss. The investigation looked at whether the firm illegally made payments to plaintiffs in order to lead a series of shareholder suits, (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2005) Plaintiffs in such suits are not permitted to receive payments beyond those awarded by courts, to avoid conflict between their interests and those of the rest of the class. The 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was drafted with Milberg Weiss in mind, limits plaintiffs to no more than five class actions in three years (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2005). Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits v. Flowserve Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation continues to face lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly made and distributed by the Company. These products were used as self-contained components of process equipment. However, the Company asserted that there was no emission of ambient asbestos-containing fiber during the use of this equipment. In addition, the Company said that a high percentage of these suits are covered by insurance or indemnities from other companies. Based in Irving, Texas, Flowserve Corp. makes pumps, valves, and mechanical seals. The Company's flow solutions division offers mechanical seals, sealing systems, and repair services to OEMs. Its flow control division makes valves, actuators, and related equipment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Faces Suits in Miss. Courts ------------------------------------------------------------- Pride International Corporation's subsidiaries, since August 2004, has been facing asbestos-related complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of Mississippi by individuals alleging that they were employed by these companies for a certain period between 1965 and 1986. The complaints alleged that drilling contractors used asbestos- containing products in offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment. The plaintiffs asserted claims based on negligence and strict liability and claims under the Jones Act. The complaints also named as defendants other firms that are not affiliated with the Company, including firms that allegedly made asbestos-containing drilling products. The plaintiffs sought an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Eight individuals in these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors. Discovery is ongoing to determine whether the Company, one of its affiliates or predecessors employed these individuals. COMPANY PROFILE Pride International Inc. 5847 San Felipe, Ste. 3300 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: 713-789-1400 Fax: 713-789-1430 http://www.prde.com Fiscal Year-End: December 2005 Sales (mil.): US$2,033.3 1-Year Sales Growth: 18.8 percent 2005 Net Income (mil.): US$128.6 2004 Employees: 13,700 1-Year Employee Growth: 12.3 percent Description: The Company offers drilling, maintenance, workover, and engineering services for oil and gas companies. It also designs specialized drilling equipment and provides project management. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Officials Get 4T Payout Applications --------------------------------------------------------------- Japanese Government officials stated that about 4,000 people have applied for financial relief since March 20, 2006 under a new law to support asbestos disease victims and their families, The Asahi Shimbun reports. Enacted on February 3, 2006, the law stipulates treatment allowances for victims of mesothelioma and asbestos-caused lung cancer as well as condolence payments for families of deceased victims. The law was created in response to revelations in 2005 of asbestos-related health problems after machinery maker Kubota Corporation admitted that asbestos used in its plants had led to health problems in neighboring communities. The new law targets those who are not covered by workers' accident compensation insurance. Recognized victims are eligible to receive a monthly allowance of JPY103,870 in addition to medical costs. Relatives of deceased victims qualify for a one- off condolence payment of about JPY3 million. The legislation offers relief to bereaved families of workers who died more than five years ago of mesothelioma or lung cancer linked to the use of asbestos in their workplace. Officials noted that people who live near factories, which used or produced asbestos, filed 70 percent of claims. The officials said that 320 people have been recognized as eligible to receive medical allowances or condolence money for deceased relatives. Officials said 2,710 resident applications had been filed as of June 27, 2006. Of the applications, 182 bereaved families and 27 patients were recognized. Of those 209 cases, 207 involved mesothelioma, while the remaining two victims had developed lung cancer. By the end of May 2006, 1,257 bereaved families had applied for the compensation on grounds the statute of limitations for workers had expired. A total of 111 were recognized. The recognized victims came from 36 prefectures. Tokyo had the most cases with 30, followed by 22 in Hyogo Prefecture and 21 each in Osaka and Kanagawa prefectures. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Notes 257 Defendants in 4 Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia recognized 257 defendants in four asbestos-related lawsuits filed on June 22, 2006, The West Virginia Record reports. David Chervenick of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based law firm Goldberg, Persky, and White sued on behalf of spouses Albert and Chestene Miller and individual David Murray. The Millers named 107 defendants in their suits. Mr. Miller worked as a laborer with the United Steel Workers Association Local 721, working at an industrial site in Kenova that was owned and operated by entities including U.S. Steel Chemical, Aristech and Novamont Chemical. Mr. Miller has developed mesothelioma, a lung disease related to asbestos exposure. Mrs. Miller is suing for loss of consortium. The Millers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Fifty-nine-year old Mr. Murray was the son of James Murray, who worked at a Wheeling Pittsburg Steel plant in Benwood. Mr. Murray, who has asbestosis and mesothelioma, said he was exposed to asbestos fibers his father brought home on his clothes. Mr. Murray named 108 defendants. John Skaggs, of Charleston, West Virginia-based The Calwell Practice, sued on behalf of Walter and Carolyn Donat and Paul and Mildred Hunt. These jointly filed suits named 42 defendants. The suit states that Mr. Donat and Mr. Hunt, who worked as laborers and welders from 1969-1996, were exposed to asbestos fibers. Mrs. Donat and Mrs. Hunt are suing for loss of consortium. Both cases seek compensatory and punitive damages. Case numbers 06-C-1193, 06-C-1198, O6-C-1212, and 06-C-1213 will be assigned to visiting judges. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Dumps UCC's Claims v. Conwed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court in Minnesota that denied Union Carbide Corp.'s claim against Conwed Corp. in an asbestos- related lawsuit. The Panel, comprised of Circuit Judges William Jay Riley, Gerald W. Heaney, and Steven M. Colloton, decided Case No. 04-3386, 04- 3855 on April 18, 2006. Conwed Corporation used asbestos from Union Carbide Corporation to make ceiling tiles. Conwed employees developed asbestos- related diseases, and Conwed paid them workers' compensation benefits. The employees sued Union Carbide based on theory of product liability. They settled with Union Carbide for damages not compensated through Minnesota's statute governing workers' compensation. Conwed sought recovery from Union Carbide for the workers' compensation benefits that were paid and payable. Union Carbide counterclaimed for contribution and indemnity. The District Court set the claims for trial and divided the claims into three groups. The first trial, for mesothelioma claims, resulted in a jury verdict for Union Carbide. Conwed agreed to dismiss claims for the employees in the second group, consisting of lung cancer claims, and the parties then tried the consolidated claims of 11 employees with asbestosis, the third group of claims. The jury found Conwed and Union Carbide at fault for causing injuries to six of the 11 employees and awarded damages, including general disability and loss of future earning capacity. Conwed appealed, claiming that the District Court improperly applied the jury's common law allocation of fault to the benefits paid and payable to determine Conwed's subrogation award. Union Carbide cross-appealed. The District Court denied Union Carbide's claim against Conwed for equitable contribution to offset the jury's award of subrogation damages, and Union Carbide likewise appealed that decision. The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court judgment, but remanded to enter judgment in the amount of US$23,878.36 rather than US$23,465.06. Robert D. Brownson and Kristi K. Warner of Minneapolis, Minnesota represented Conwed Corp. Trevor J. Will, G. Michael Halfenger, and Christoper S. Schilder of Milwaukee, Wisconsin represented Union Carbide Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DaimlerChrysler Holds 28,000 Claims in 4Q05 ---------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler AG, primarily its subsidiary DaimlerChrysler Corporation, had about 28,000 asbestos-related lawsuits in the 2005-4th quarter against 14,000 in the 2001-4th quarter. The Company faced about 29,000 asbestos-related suits in the 2004-4th quarter. (Class Action Reporter, July 1, 2005) The Company has experienced a growing number of multi-defendant suits, which seek compensatory and punitive damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from direct and indirect exposure to asbestos used primarily in some vehicle components, principally brake pads. These suits name other corporate defendants and may also include claims of exposure to non-automotive asbestos products. A single suit may include claims by multiple plaintiffs alleging illness in the form of asbestosis, mesothelioma or other cancer or illness. In most cases, plaintiffs do not specify their alleged illness and provide little detail about their alleged exposure to components in DaimlerChrysler's vehicles. Some plaintiffs do not exhibit current illness, but seek recovery based on potential future illness. Based in Stuttgart, Germany, DaimlerChrysler AG makes about 4.6 million vehicles a year with brands including Dodge, Jeep, and Chrysler vehicles. The Mercedes Car Group includes Mercedes, Maybach (ultra-luxury vehicles), and smart (mini cars). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Asks Court to Estimate Liabilities -------------------------------------------------------------- ASARCO LLC asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to estimate derivative asbestos liabilities and enter a case management order establishing procedures for that estimation. A hearing on the Estimation Motion was held on May 12, 2006. At that time, the Court took the matter under advisement and directed the parties to attempt to negotiate a schedule for an estimation hearing. The parties were able to reach an agreement regarding some aspects of the procedure for resolution of the Derivative Asbestos Claims, Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., at Baker Botts LLP, in Dallas, Texas, tells the Court. Accordingly, ASARCO seeks the Court's authority to enter into a settlement agreement with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, and Robert C. Pate, future claims representative, regarding procedures to resolve the Derivative Asbestos Claims. The salient terms of the Settlement Agreement are: (a) The parties will ask the Court to conduct a pre-hearing conference in July 2006 to set the manner of conducting the hearing for the derivative asbestos claims issues; (b) The parties set these schedules for discovery: Dec. 1, 2006 -- Completion of all fact discovery Dec. 15, 2006 -- Filing and serving of opening expert reports Dec. 18, 2006 -- Asbestos Committee and the FCR's filing of pleading asserting the aggregate amount of the Derivative Asbestos Claims -- Filing of pleading asserting ASARCO's view of the aggregate amount of its liability for the Derivative Asbestos Claims Jan. 15, 2007 -- Filing and serving of rebuttal expert reports Jan. 31, 2007 -- Completion of discovery regarding opening expert reports -- Filing and serving of revised opening expert reports Feb. 15, 2007 -- Completion of discovery regarding rebuttal experts and revised opening reports (c) Any party may ask the Court to schedule more status conferences; (d) The parties will file a proposed hearing order, witness lists, copies of all exhibits to be offered and all schedules and summaries to be used, and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law two weeks before the hearing; (e) The parties will ask the Court to hold a final pre-hearing conference on a date determined by the Court; (f) The parties will ask the Court to commence the hearing on the Contested Matter in March 2007; (g) The adversary proceeding between ASARCO, the Asbestos Committee and the FCR will be stayed pending a resolution of ASARCO's liability for the Derivative Asbestos Claims; and (h) The parties will file a joint motion to resolve the Derivative Asbestos Claims. Mr. Kinzie asserts that the Settlement Agreement strikes a fair and reasonable balance between ASARCO's need to obtain estimation of the Derivative Asbestos Claims, and the Asbestos Committee and the FCR's need for discovery regarding the Derivative Asbestos Claims. The Settlement Agreement permits ASARCO to move forward with the resolution of the Derivative Asbestos Claims, and thereby advance its reorganization efforts, Mr. Kinzie adds. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 24; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Group Seeks to Change ASARCO Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Subsidiary Debtors and Robert C. Pate, as Future Claims Representative, filed an amended complaint, realigning parties and seeking to hold ASARCO LLC, liable for tort liabilities of the Subsidiary Debtors against ASARCO. Subsidiary Debtors Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltee, Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., LAQ Canada Ltd., Capco Pipe Company, Inc., and Cement Asbestos Products Company are no longer operating companies. Jacob L. Newton, Esq., at Stuzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, APC, in Dallas, Texas, related that as early as December 1976, numerous asbestos claims were asserted against CAPCO, LAQ and ASARCO. The Subsidiary Debtors depend on ASARCO and its insurance coverage to fund their asbestos liabilities. Under various alter ego theories, Mr. Newton asserted that ASARCO is directly responsible for the Subsidiary Debtors' asbestos liabilities because, among others: (a) ASARCO owns 100% of the Subsidiary Debtors' stock; (b) The Subsidiary Debtors have failed to adhere to corporate formalities and maintain adequate corporate records, underscoring the fact that the relationship between the Subsidiary Debtors and ASARCO was not at arms' length; (c) ASARCO caused the Subsidiary Debtors to become and remain insolvent by siphoning funds and stripping all assets from the Subsidiary Debtors in the face of massive asbestos liabilities, leaving the Subsidiary Debtors wholly dependent upon ASARCO and its insurance policies to fund those liabilities; (d) The Subsidiary Debtors have been made to function as mere facades for ASARCO, as mere shams existing for no other purpose than as vehicles for fraud; (e) ASARCO has commingled assets with one or more of the Subsidiary Debtors; (f) With knowledge of the massive asbestos and environmental liabilities asserted against the Subsidiary Debtors, ASARCO caused all assets to be stripped from the Subsidiary Debtors, leaving them as mere shell companies, hopelessly undercapitalized and insolvent; (g) ASARCO and the Subsidiary Debtors' operations are significantly intertwined by the sharing of corporate counsel, staff and offices; (h) ASARCO asserted control and domination over the Subsidiary Debtors; (i) ASARCO, LAQ, CAPCO had an intertwined executive structure and overlapping officers and directors. (j) ASARCO and the Subsidiary Debtors share corporate counsel, staff, corporate offices, addresses, telephone numbers, and others; (k) ASARCO guaranteed settlement obligations of at least some of the Subsidiary Debtors; and (l) The Subsidiary Debtors' employees are carried on in ASARCO's payroll. Accordingly, the Subsidiary Committee and the FCR asked the Court to declare that ASARCO is liable for the Subsidiary Debtors' asbestos liabilities under various Alter Ego Theories, agency principles, partnership principles, conspiracy principles, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty principles. The Subsidiary Committee and the FCR reserved their right to add more defendants in the adversary proceeding as may be deemed necessary and appropriate. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 24; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning to Agree on Royal Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Owens Corning and Royal Indemnity Company are parties to an agreement among a number of insurers and producers of asbestos- containing products. The agreement, commonly referred to as the Wellington Agreement, provides a framework by which disputes relating to coverage for asbestos-related claims would be resolved. By the mid-1990s, Owens Corning had consumed the products limits of all its insurance policies issued by subscribing insurers to the Wellington Agreement, including Royal. J. Kate Stickles, Esq., at Saul Ewing LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that for many years, Owens Corning has been seeking confirmation from its insurers that they will pay asbestos claims that are not subject to the "products" limits of their policies. The "non- products" claims include claims involving alleged injury during the course of Owens Corning's installation of asbestos- containing materials. Owens Corning and Royal disagree with respect to whether, and the extent to which, Royal has further coverage obligations to Owens Corning. The Debtors asserts that Royal continues to have coverage obligations with respect to "non-products" claims notwithstanding the exhaustion of the policies' "products" limits. Royal contends that the alleged "non-products" claims are subject to the policy limits that have already been exhausted. On October 26, 2005, Owens Corning initiated an alternative dispute resolution proceeding against Royal pursuant to the Wellington Agreement, by which Owens Corning sought coverage for "non-products" claims. Subsequently Owens Corning and Royal engaged in non-binding mediation with the assistance of David Geronemus, a neutral third party. On April 4, 2006, Owens Corning and Royal reached an agreement in principle to settle their dispute concerning coverage for "non-products" claims. The parties later finalized the terms of their settlement, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement effective May 23, 2006. The principal terms of the Settlement Agreement include: a. Royal will pay a monetary amount into an escrow account by June 30, 2006; b. Owens Corning and Royal will mutually release each other and their related entities from all claims relating to the excess liability policies issued by Royal to Owens Corning; c. Key terms of the Settlement Agreement are contingent on the entry of a final order confirming a plan of reorganization that includes an injunction pursuant to Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code protecting, inter alia, Royal; and d. In the event that the Settlement Agreement becomes null and void -- for example, if a plan is confirmed by Final Order without a 524(g) Injunction -- Royal will be entitled to the prompt release and return of any payment previously made to the Escrow Account, and the parties will have restored all rights, defenses, and obligations relating to the excess liability policies issued by Royal to Owens Corning and the Wellington Agreement. Pursuant to Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Debtors ask the Court to approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement enables the Debtors to avoid the expense, delay and risk associated with further alternative dispute resolution proceedings, Ms. Stickles says. The Debtors believe that the Settlement Amount and timing of payment is reasonable in light of the expenses, delays and risks of ongoing coverage proceedings, and the fact that Owens Corning's demands against Royal were premised on assertions of future payment obligations by Royal. In accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Debtors seek the Court's authority to file the Agreement under seal. "Safeguarding [the Settlement's] confidentiality advances the interests of Owens Corning and Royal considerably by providing them with greater flexibility in future negotiations and settlements with third parties," Ms. Stickles states. (Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 134; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Says Locals Deserve Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Senator Max Baucus said that some Libby, Montana residents who suffer from asbestos-related disease are entitled to as much as US$40,000 in back payments from the U.S. Social Security Administration, Daily Inter Lake reports. Residents had been denied payments because the Social Security Administration did not have disability benefit criteria for amphibole asbestosis, which is the asbestos disease linked to the former W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine at Libby. The Social Security Administration ruled in May 2006 that victims of asbestos poisoning in Libby are eligible to apply for disability benefits. Libby residents who were denied disability status under two different programs may qualify for retroactive payments. Residents who have not worked since being denied benefits under the Social Security Disability Insurance benefits program during the last four years may be eligible for back payments up to about US$40,000 an in some cases up to about US$70,000. Libby residents who have not worked since being denied disability benefits under the Supplemental Security benefits program during the last two years may be eligible for back payments up to about US$10,000 and in some cases as much as about US$25,000. Sen. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, moved to help Libby asbestos victims after learning that people afflicted from exposure to chrysotile asbestos are eligible for disability benefits. Sen. Baucus said the amount owed to each person would be determined by the date he or she applied for assistance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Payout for Mother's Death Sought in Japan -------------------------------------------------------------- Supporters of a 57-year-old woman from Tomakomai, Hokkaido, Japan said that she filed for industrial accident compensation on behalf of her mother, who died of an asbestos-related disease after working at a chrome mine in the prefecture, Kyodo News reports. The claim was filed at a local labor standards office. The woman's supporters said that her mother extracted chrome from serpentine rocks at a mine in the town of Mukawa in southern Hokkaido between 1958 and 1962. The supporters' group added that the mother developed malignant mesothelioma and died in November 2004 at the age of 84. Mitsuru Nakagawa, an expert on serpentine rocks and a researcher at the Hokkaido office of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, said, "Serpentine rocks contain asbestos so there is a possibility that she inhaled the dust during the mining work." Illnesses linked to asbestos usually have long periods of incubation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Wins Payout for Lung-Cancer Death --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Byrne, whose husband died from asbestos-related lung cancer, won the legal battle for compensation for an undisclosed amount, according to an Irwin Mitchell news release. Former scaffolder Bill Byrne, of Birmingham, U.K., died in 2002 at the age of 71 while his brother, Bob, died seven years earlier at the age of 61. The brothers worked at Mills Scaffolding and Lyndon Scaffolding during the 1950s and the 1960s, and died from mesothelioma. While an inquest found that Bill Byrne's death was due to industrial disease, Mrs. Byrne had to prove that his death was due to asbestos exposure in order to sue his former employers. Solicitor Helen Ashton, of Irwin Mitchell, who represented Mrs. Byrne said, "Bill Byrne's case was extremely difficult both medically and legally. We had to prove on the balance of probabilities that the asbestos exposure led to Bill's lung cancer and untimely death." Ms. Ashton added that solicitors were seeing an escalating number of asbestos related lung cancer cases. Asbestos causes at least as many deaths from lung cancer as it does from mesothelioma, but because there are other causes, including smoking, it is much harder to prove asbestos exposure was to blame. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun, GM Clash Over Memo as Proof ------------------------------------------------------------- Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc clashed with General Motors Corporation in court over a document that GM claimed to be proof in its US$1 billion (GBP550 million) lawsuit over asbestos-related personal injury liabilities, The Telegraph reports. "It's like a smoking gun, your honor," Edward Tessler, GM's legal counsel, told the Oakland County Court in Pontiac, Michigan. GM told the Court it had found a memo, which it claimed to be proof that Royal & Sun Alliance was liable for the claims. GM alleged that the memo has an admission of liability by William Watt, a senior executive at Royal & Sun's U.S. business in the 1970s. GM alleged that Mr. Watt admitted in the memo that Royal & Sun would have to pay out for any future claims that related to the period of coverage. GM sued Royal & Sun in a dispute regarding asbestos-related personal injury policies between 1954 and 1974. (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2006. The hearing was a preliminary hearing ahead of the U.S. trial, which is set to begin in September 2006. Since 2000, GM has been faced with class action suits claiming damages for illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos in products like brake linings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Considers Selling Off ABB Lummus Global ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABB Ltd.'s Chief Financial Officer Michel Demare said that the Company is to sell off several of its German and U.S. investments, citing U.S. subsidiary ABB Lummus Global Inc. as one of possible targets, Agence France Presse reports. ABB Lummus has been sued in the U.S. for claims over exposure to asbestos in its products. Mr. Demare said that ABB Lummus' value increased, compared to two years ago, when a sell-off would have resulted in a heavy loss for ABB. Mr. Demare added that the asbestos case against ABB Lummus is "in its final phase" and the positive state of the oil and gas sectors has contributed to an upturn in ABB Lummus' fortunes. In April 2006, ABB paid US$1.43 billion dollars (EUR1.18 billion euros) compensation to claimants in asbestos cases involving another of its U.S. subsidiaries Based in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd. operates through two major divisions, power technologies and automation technologies, and serves utility, industrial, and commercial customers. The Company has undergone extensive restructuring to focus on these two units. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian EPA to Monitor College Cleanup -------------------------------------------------------------- The Queensland Government's Environmental Protection Agency has been asked to coordinate the asbestos cleanup in a former TAFE College damaged by fire in Brisbane, Australia, ABC reports. Barry Pearce, a senior fire officer, said crews are wearing protective masks and clothing because of the amount of asbestos in the 50-meter long building. Mr. Pearce said, "Now that we know it is on site, the site itself will be contained and then as I say protective clothing will be worn by anyone going on this site. The fire is considered suspicious as the building was derelict and had no power connected. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Bans Use of Alimta for Asbestos Cancer --------------------------------------------------------------- NHS in England has banned the use of the drug Alimta by sufferers of mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease linked to heavy industries, Doncaster Today reports. Eli Lilly, Alimta's manufacturer, said it would appeal against the decision. A National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence study suggested that patients should be denied Alimta from October 2006. NICE studied the cost and effectiveness of Alimta and concluded that the drug, which costs about GBP8,000 for each patient, should not be recommended for use except as part of ongoing or new trials. Figures show that 127 people in Doncaster and 354 in South Yorkshire died from asbestos-related cancer between 1981 and 2000, with cases expected to peak over the next decade. While asbestos was banned in the U.K. in 1999, about 65,000 cases are expected to occur between 2002 and 2050, as people who were exposed to the substance in the 1970s fall ill. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAT, Allianz Australia Settle Cancer Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- British American Tobacco plc and Allianz Australia settled an out-of-court asbestos-related insurance claim brought in behalf of Allan Mowbray, a former employee of Brambles Industries DLC Group, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. Mr. Mowbray died of lung cancer in 2002. His case was filed in the Dust Diseases Tribunal. Allianz, as Brambles' insurer, paid AUD200,000 in compensation because Mr. Mowbray had been exposed to asbestos fibers found in brake linings, in his work as a mechanic. Brambles filed a cross-claim against BAT, saying it should pay some of the compensation because Mr. Mowbray had been a longstanding smoker. The case attracted attention in May 2006 when Brambles amended its cross-claim to include allegations that BAT had deliberately destroyed damaging documents and hidden others by handing them to its lawyers under cover of false requests for legal advice. Brambles also claimed BAT had falsely claimed that its so-called "document retention policies" had an innocent housekeeping explanation, in order to prevent the courts overturning claims for legal professional privilege or assuming the worst about the contents of destroyed documents. On May 30, 2006, Judge Jim Curtis ordered BAT to hand over material including detailed lists of what had happened to documents formerly held by firms within the BAT group and by the Tobacco Institute of Australia. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Reduces Liabilities by $900Mil in Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- ACE Ltd., the holding company for the ACE Group of Cos., has reduced its exposure to legacy liabilities, including asbestos, by about US$900 million in the sale of its three run-off reinsurance units to insurance management firm Randall & Quilter Investment Holdings Ltd., according to an ACE Ltd. press release. ACE has also reduced its reinsurance recoverables by about US$400 million. The agreement to sell ACE American Reinsurance Co., Brandywine Reinsurance Co. (UK) Ltd., and Brandywine Reinsurance Co. S.A.- N.V. to Randall & Quilter was announced in January 2005. The sale followed necessary approvals by the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority and the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. Both regulators approved the sale of the firms within their jurisdiction after concluding that the firms were adequately capitalized and that Randall & Quilter was a fit buyer. Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd., through its subsidiaries, sells property and casualty insurance and reinsurance in the U.S. and about 50 other countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court, Cape Approve GBP40M Fund for Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.K. High Court and shareholders of Cape PLC approved a GBP40 million compensation fund for asbestos victims of Cape's former subsidiary, Barking & Dagenham Post reports. Families exposed by Cape Asbestos, which Cape PLC formerly owned, voted in favor of the scheme. Cape PLC would now establish a separate company to deal with compensation and pay in GBP40 million. The sum is estimated to last for about eight years and Cape PLC has pledged to top it up every three years, if necessary. Solicitor Daniel Easton said, "We told our clients they had to make their own minds up whether they trusted Cape to top up the fund in the future. We have got significant concerns that they won't add money and that future asbestos claims will go unpaid." Observers fear that loopholes would allow Cape PLC to make excuses for not adding funds. Based in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom, Cape PLC makes fire protection, insulation, and building products for the construction industry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widows to Gain After Reversal of Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Widows from West Cumbria in the U.K. could benefit after the Government would amend the Compensation Bill to reverse a House of Lords ruling, Times & Star reports. The House of Lords reduced the amount of compensation granted to two widows after their husbands died of industrial disease mesothelioma. Saint-Gobain Pipelines plc appealed against the decision to award GBP152,000 damages to a Flintshire widow, because it said it was the legal successor to the original employer, which had gone out of business and so it was not fully liable. The House of Lords upheld the appeal and the firm had to pay only a portion of the damages. But Prime Minister Tony Blair has agreed to review the judgment and the Government would amend the Compensation Bill to reverse the Lords' decision. New Securities Fraud Cases KLA-TENCOR: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against certain members of the board of directors and certain executive officers of KLA-Tencor Corp. The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director stock option grants (a.k.a. back-dated stock options). Such practice of awarding stock options to executives and directors at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the company's internal documents (such as the company's stock option plan), as well as state laws governing officer and director fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing securities and taxation. In addition, the practice results in lower payments to companies, results in those companies under-reporting compensation expenses, and permits directors, officers and/or executives to unjustifiably reap millions and billions of dollars which should be disgorged and returned to the corporate coffers thereby contributing to the financial health of the company. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: E-mail: ssbny@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *